Sitting of 9 July 1974

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

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

  1. Juries Act 1974.

  2. Prices Act 1974.

  3. Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.

  4. Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Act 1974.

  5. Crude Oil Terminals (Humber) Act 1974.

  6. Morpeth Common Act 1974.

  7. University of Bristol Act 1974.

  And to the following Measures, passed under the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:

  Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure 1974.

  Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure 1974.

  ROYAL ASSENT
    PRIVATE BUSINESS
      LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
      Lords amendments agreed to.

      MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
      Order for consideration read.
      To be considered tomorrow.

      BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL [Lords]
      As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers wholly unemployed in June 1974; and what further steps he is taking to reduce the numbers wholly unemployed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): On 10th June 1974, 515,773 people were unemployed in Great Britain. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated his intention to introduce a second Budget to make such further adjustments as are necessary to keep up the level of employment.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action, but will he look particularly at problems of areas such as Cannock Chase district which are close to large conurbations and which in addition to having a high level of unemployment have a hidden level of unemployment in the increasing proportion of the population which has to travel to and from the conurbation to find work?
    Mr. Fraser: We take these matters into account. It is true that Cannock has a higher rate of unemployment than elsewhere, although if we take away miners who are unemployed, many of whom are disabled, we find that the rate in Cannock is as low as 2·7 per cent. The needs of people in that situation are taken into account in the training programme.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the hon. Gentleman still think that the unemployment figures are accurate? If so, how does he justify them in view of the shortages of labour which are being experienced in areas of unemployment above the national average?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say that the figures are absolutely accurate because some people are unemployed and do not register as such. There are some vacancies which are not notified to my Department. The figures I gave are the best available in the circumstances.

    Social Contract
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the statements by Mr. Buckton given in evidence at the Railways Staffs National Tribunal hearing concerning his union's 16 per cent. pay claim on 25th June, he remains satisfied with the operation of a voluntary social compact.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): Mr. Buckton has made it clear that the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract" issued on 26th June has his full support. I have talked with him on the subject and I am sure that some of the views he quite naturally expressed at the tribunal have been considerably misinterpreted.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we greet his statement with considerable relief? Is he also aware that we congratulate him on the success of his policy in so far as the miners in their pay claim have not named a sum which could be called substantial? Will he say whether the social compact can stand many awards of the sort envisaged at Shell of 25 per cent. and more?
    Mr. Foot: To deal with the last point first, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figure. In any case, so far as I understand the situation no settlement has been reached there. I think we should wait to see what the situation is. As for the relief expressed by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary question, I am not sure whether the nation can rejoice as his relief, but if he understands the situation better the whole country will be glad to hear it.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure full implementation of the Equal Pay Act 1970 by the appointed day.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress towards equal pay: and what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act are carried out.
    Mr. Foot: My information suggests that a good deal of progress is being made but that there are some areas where it is certainly not satisfactory. I have had talks with the TUC on this subject and I am considering what more can be done to bring to the attention of employers, women and their trade unions the need to press forward in good time to achieve full compliance with the Act when it comes into operation on 29th December 1975. Employers should realise that if they have not yet done anything about equal pay they are leaving it very late and they run the risk of breaking the law.
    Among the actions I am considering is a further publicity effort and the possible use of my power, from the end of this year, to refer collective agreements to the Industrial Arbitration Board for advice.
    Mr. Hamilton: I recognise the fact of the timetable and other difficulties experienced by the Government, but will my right hon. Friend accept that this particular claim probably is the oldest wage claim in the history of the trade union movement and that nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of its implementation by December 1975? Will he give an assurance that he will make it abundantly clear to the recalcitrant employers, and in some cases trade unions, that the full rigours of the 1970 enforcement provisions will be applied retrospectively as provided in that legislation?
    Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend looks at the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this subject a few weeks ago, he will see that he spoke in the strongest terms on the matter and, indeed, in much the same terms as my hon. Friend has now used. The Department is greatly strengthening the resources that are applied to the work of trying to ensure that we proceed to prepare for implementation of the Act, we have strengthened the resources of investigation and report dealing with this matter and we are considering what further steps we can take in the form of publicity and the rest to deal with it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must make absolutely sure that this old wage claim is met.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not share his complacency when he says that good progress has been made? Is he aware that full-time manual women workers get only 62 per cent. of the male wage and that full-time non-manual women workers get only 54 per cent. of the male wage? Is not that a poor position when we are only 18 months away from full implementation of the Equal Pay Act?
    When my right hon. Friend carries out the publicity campaign, will he do so with more precision and firmness than did his predecessor? If he is not successful, will he seek to lay a statutory instrument before the House to see that there is 90 per cent. equal pay by the end of this year, for which the Act provides?
    Mr. Foot: The Act provided that a statutory instrument could be laid to achieve the result desired by both my hon. Friend and the Government, but the power to use a statutory instrument was exhausted at the end of last year and because it was not used by the previous Government it is not available to us under the terms of the Act.
    Therefore, when considering whether to seek fresh legislative power we found that we would have to have completely new legislation and that we could not take action by statutory instrument. In view of the fact that the Act as a whole comes into operation at the end of next year, we did not think that the best way to go about it was to have fresh legislation now.
    I assure my hon. Friend that there is no complacency about this matter. I said in my earlier remarks that we had progressed better in some areas and in some respects than in others, but we will do everything in our power to ensure both that the Act is fully carried out and that employers understand well in advance that equal pay will be the law of the land by December 1975.

    Arms Industry Workers(Redeployment)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will speedily draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by reduction in arms spending, including the policies successfully adopted in 1945 to transfer workers from
    1120
    war work to peaceful industrial employment.
    Mrs. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will draw up and publish plans for redeployment of any workers who may be affected by a reduction in defence spending and/or armaments production for export, to prevent unemployment.
    Mr. John Fraser: My Department is studying the employment implications of a revision of the defence programme including the need for the redeployment of workers. This work cannot be finalised until the defence review is completed in the autumn.
    Mr. Allaun: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend consider following the experience of the American Government which required major arms firms to submit plans for diversification of their products if necessary? Will he plan to ensure that where arms production is cut it will be replaced in the same locality by alternative work of greater commercial value to the country?
    Mr. Fraser: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is too early to be able to give specific instances of how unemployment, if it arose from arms reduction, would take place, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestions.
    Sir P. Bryan: Can the hon. Gentleman gauge the scale of unemployment directly attributable to loss of orders due to the Government's attitude to some of our regular arms customers, and more especially the potential loss of custom from those who might have dealt with us but who now see that Britain cannot honour her contracts?
    Mr. Fraser: I think I explained on the last occasion when I answered Questions that I was not aware of any unemployment which arose as a decision of the Government. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is purely hypothetical.
    Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side would welcome a reduction in the export of armaments as we do not understand the logic of a policy which arms people in all the different parts of the world without there

    1121
    being any guarantee about what will ultimately happen to those arms? Does he agree that any examination of the arms industry should take this into account? Will he ensure that workers in the armaments industry are fully reassured that any changes in policy will not be at their expense, that they will be fully consulted and that their expertise will be utilised in deciding on suitable redeployment?
    Mr. Fraser: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, matters of policy relating to the sale of arms are not matters for my Department. No doubt my hon. Friend's remarks in that respect will be noted. With reference to the second part of her supplementary question, it is too early to say, on the current defence review, what kind of cuts may take place but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be consultation between Departments, and I am sure that the views of workers and their representatives about problems of redeployment will be taken into account.
    Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister and persuade him to go to dockyard constituencies and ensure that this time, instead of making speeches about expansion of the Royal Navy, he says what the Labour Party is really up to?
    Mr. Fraser: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to put a question to my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, if he wishes. As, however, we have in this country—despite the level of the unemployment figures—a considerable shortage of skilled labour and considerable civil objectives to fulfil I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the proposals which ultimately will be made by the Government on defence reduction.

    Industrial Relations Act
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he now expects to secure the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act before the end of July 1974.
    Mr. Foot: I certainly hope so.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Industrial Relations Act has been one of the longest running
    1122
    farces in parliamentary history? Does he further agree that millions of pounds have been spent on this lavish production, that hundreds of people have been engaged in chasing one another from confrontation to confrontation and that finally the ageing comic hero, like Falstaff, in the guise of the Leader of the Opposition has abandoned the stage saying that he never meant it after all?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend makes the farce so attractive that I am almost sorry it is going to end.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his confidence that the Act will be repealed by the end of July conflicts with his weekend statement that the opposition of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party together has made government virtually impossible and has made it inevitable that there should be an early General Election? Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what things in his Department have been made impossible by the activities of the Opposition?
    Mr. Foot: One of the things made impossible was the restoration to the trade unions of the £10 million which the previous Government took from them. What I was referring to in my weekend remarks was the prospective abolition of the Pay Board. I hope that we shall have Liberal support in carrying through that operation. Perhaps the Liberals have changed their minds about this, as they did about the Industrial Relations Act.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will still be serious misgivings about the loss of the £10 million by the trade union movement, that this involves losses for pension funds, widows and educational trusts and that the Opposition seem intent on withholding this money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this question will not be forgotten and that it will be resurrected at a later date?
    Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter. I certainly hope that we will be able to deal with this as soon as we have an assured majority for justice in this House of Commons.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how interesting we found his remarks just now that the £10 million

    1123
    repayment to the trade union movement was a cardinal point and one on which he presumably wishes to fight? Is he also aware that when he produces his new Bill, of which he is making such a cardinal feature, we will be very interested to hear his own personal explanation of it instead of the kind of general sermon which he preached on Second Reading?
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman will have to possess his soul, if that is what it is, in patience until tomorrow and Thursday, when we shall discuss these matters. As for the first part of his supplementary question about the £10 million, the protestation of the right hon. Gentleman and others of his right hon. and hon. Friends was that they never wanted to see the trade unions lose the money. Therefore, all that we were attempting to do was to carry out their good intentions, if their intentions were good.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that substantial sections of the 1971 Act are being reenacted by the legislation at present before Parliament and that the important questions before this House at the moment are the amendments needed to that legislation during the Report stage to make it broadly acceptable to the country?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill now before the House is incorrect, but we shall have a chance to debate that. The only substantial part of the 1971 Act which reappears in our Bill is that dealing with unfair dismissals, and that part was taken from the Bill of 1970 of the previous Government.

    Vacancies
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the actual number of job vacancies in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Fraser: At 5th June 1974 my Department knew of 340,173 job vacancies notified to employment offices in the United Kingdom and 113,765 job vacancies which had been notified to careers offices. I have no reliable information on the number of vacancies outstanding which had not been notified.
    Mr. Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has just given are totally inaccurate and unreliable since they do not indicate the number of job vacancies that exist in the United Kingdom? His Department knows only of between 20 and 25 per cent. of vacancies whereas there are at present between 1½ million and 2 million vacancies, with probably 100,000 or fewer people looking for jobs. Is not this one of the main causes of the economic predicament in which we find ourselves? Will the hon. Gentleman take measures to save the taxpayer's money in printing figures which are not only useless but also dangerous?
    Mr. Fraser: I find that an extraordinary contribution. The figures which I gave are figures of vacancies notified to the Department. Obviously I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for vacancies which are not notified to the Department. However, we recently carried out a study of 34 companies. It showed that 32 per cent. of vacancies had been notified to the Department. But that is too small a segment to give an overall picture. There are vacancies outside those notified to employment offices.
    The number of people seeking work is very much higher than the 100,000 figure referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Some people find jobs without going through the employment offices. But the hon. Gentleman's conclusions are quite extraordinary.
    Mr. Prior: Would not it be in the national interest to have a proper review of the unemployment figures and their accuracy? Is not that a matter which we could take out of the realm of party politics and on which a proper review could be done which might give a very different picture of the total number of people unemployed?
    Mr. Fraser: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Other countries have tried. I give one example. Canada recently conducted a survey to measure the total of outstanding vacancies and also to look at unemployment apart from those registered. It was an expensive operation both in money and in employers' time. It is not considered that such a survey to get more accurate figures than the ones I have given would be justified.

    Redundancy Protection
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider taking steps to extend the protection available to workers faced with redundancy.
    Mr. John Fraser: My right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultative document on an Employment Protection Bill. This will include proposals on the protection available to workers who are made redundant.
    Mr. Gardiner: Before that, as a first step, will the hon. Gentleman consider lifting his blocking reserve on the EEC directive on redundancy in order that workers throughout Western Europe may benefit from its provisions?
    Mr. Fraser: Question No. 13 on the Order Paper deals with that subject. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to answer it when we reach it.
    Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend intend to give any consideration to the plight of workers employed by firms which go bankrupt, who at present get no proper cover? Will he undertake to ensure that consideration is given to this problem in any future action that is taken to provide proper redundancy payments?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes. I have recently written to my hon. Friend, and I can confirm that consideration will be given to that proposal.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the consultative document to which he has referred will be published before we rise for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Fraser: No, I cannot give that assurance. I can only say that it will be published later this year.

    Nurses and Teachers
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many nurses and teachers have obtained employment through his Department in the last six months.
    Mr. John Fraser: The figures are 2,813 and 50 respectively.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that both nurses and teachers have been caused a great deal of anger and annoyance
    1126
    over the past three years and that the present demonstrations that they are making are the result of this massive frustration? Will he do all in his power to ease their annoyance and frustration so that more teachers and nurses can be recruited to do the admirable work which our society needs?
    Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend's supplementary question does not arise strictly out of his Question. The House will recognise, however, that my right hon. Friend has set up two general reviews—one into teachers' pay and the other into nurses' pay. I do not know that we have had a Government in recent memory who have taken such urgent and quick action over the problems of these two professions.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my hon. Friend feel that, instead of nurses and teachers obtaining employment, they will leave their employment if the Government insist on implementing the deplorable Pay Board report and refusing to give local weighting to nurses and teachers working in places like Watford, where 50 yards away in the town hall people get that local allowance? Is the Government's motto to be "The Pay Board, right or wrong"?
    Mr. Fraser: In answering questions on this matter last week my right hon. Friend did not give any impression that negotiators were rigidly constrained by the Pay Board report and he said that as soon as possible they would not be rigidly constrained by a statutory incomes policy. The report affords valuable guidance that there is evidence of the higher cost of living in London. If payments were made over and above these costs it would mean a transfer of resources from other parts of the country to the capital.

    EEC Social Fund Grants
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list those projects which benefited from the grants received by the United Kingdom under the EEC Social Fund in 1973; and if he will make a statement regarding actual and potential grants in 1974.
    Mr. John Fraser: The following schemes in Great Britain received financial assistance from the European Social Fund in 1973: training of unemployed

    1127
    workers in the assisted areas; other Government expenditure on training; transfer of workers from and within the assisted areas; training and resettlement of workers leaving agriculture; training of workers in or leaving textiles; training of disabled persons; industrial rehabilitation of disabled persons. Similar schemes in Northern Ireland also received assistance from the fund.
    Applications in respect of these and other schemes of a smaller scale in the field of training and rehabilitation have been submitted for 1974 but as yet no decisions have been made on awards. Further applications may be submitted during the course of the year.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the sum which the United Kingdom received from the fund in 1973 amounted to £24 million? Is it not also a fact that applications which have been made in respect of this year fall below that figure, despite the fact that the size of the fund for the Community as a whole has been increased? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Secretary of State has not given any directive that we should go slow in our applications to the fund because of any views that he may hold about the EEC?
    Mr. Fraser: The figure for awards during 1973 was £19·83 million. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a full list of applications for 1974 because changes were recently made in decisions about schemes qualifying for help for migrants and disabled people. This should extend the area of applications which can be made to the Commission for help from the fund. For instance, I hope that it would include applications for assistance towards the expenses of the Race Relations Board, our race relations advisers, the Community Relations Commission and certain rehabilitation schemes for the disabled.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits from the social and regional funds of the EEC are minimal compared with the huge adverse effect of the common agricultural policy with all its acute social effects as well?
    Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I may give a mathematical answer. The amount that we receive from the European Social
    1128
    Fund is very small compared with the payments which are made to the common agricultural fund.
    Mr. George Lawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that these facilities and advantages are almost unknown among workers and trade unionists in Britain? Will he do his utmost to bring to their notice the many advantages that could accrue to them if they made use of the facilities available to them?
    Mr. Fraser: The payments which come from the European Social Fund are repayments of amounts expended by this Government on schemes conducted in the United Kingdom. It would be claiming too much to say that the European Social Fund made a significant difference to the facilities that we provide in this country. However, it provides a useful contribution in meeting half the costs of the schemes that we undertake.

    Redundancy (EEC Directive)
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Employment why a reserve was placed on the EEC directive on redundancy.
    Mr. John Fraser: I explained at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 10th June that the Government were undertaking a fundamental review of industrial relations legislation. In the light of this the Council decided to postpone discussion of the draft directive until its next meeting.
    Mr. Redmond: In the light of that reply and the reply on the previous Question, particularly the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), is it not obvious that the Government intend to smother all the positive aspects of the Common Market and to keep them from the people of this country?
    Mr. Fraser: That suggestion is quite ludicrous. I explained to the Council of Ministers, and I do not apologise for this, that there were certain proposals which I thought it better to discuss with people in this country—the trade unions and employers—before coming to any decision at Luxembourg. That was no part of any renegotiation stance. It was the right attitude to adopt: to talk about

    1129
    these matters here first and later to make decisions at Luxembourg.

    West Midlands
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for the West Midlands Region.
    Mr. John Fraser: Currently there is a strong demand for labour in the region and it is the Government's policy to do all they can to maintain employment at a high level.
    Mr. Carter: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in a region where one-quarter of the industrial work force is employed in the car industry the announcement by British Leyland that it is encountering difficulties and has doubts about the future has met with disquiet? May I ask, therefore, what his Department and the Secretary of State may be urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in terms of economic changes that may remove the causes of those doubts?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say. I hope it is reassuring to my hon. Friend that unemployment in the West Midlands is 1·9 per cent., which is less than in Great Britain as a whole. I understand his concern about job prospects at British Leyland. However, in the West Midlands there is a particularly strong demand for skilled engineering workers, and expansion plans already begun for Rover, Triumph and Jaguar at Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull are expected to continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will find this information reassuring.
    Mr. Tugendhat: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his optimistic statement with the collapse in consumer spending revealed in the first part of the year and with the dismal state of hire-purchase figures? Surely these are much more revealing than his hon. Friend's question and his rather sanguine reply.
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think I was making either optimistic or pessimistic forecasts. I was simply giving the House the facts.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the North Staffordshire area of the West Midlands Region there will be a catastrophic increase in unemployment if the Shelton steelworks are allowed to close? While recognising the demarcation problems between Ministers, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will undertake to consult the Secretary of State for Industry about the Shelton steelworks as unemployment would be a grave problem for North Staffordshire if the works were allowed to close?
    Mr. Fraser: There are always consultions between the Department responsible for the steel industry and my Department about the consequences of redundancies. I have seen some of the effects of this problem. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has announced arrangements for consultation with Members of Parliament and trade unionists about the effects of closures. We shall certainly do all we can to assist.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable apprehension about the future in the Birmingham and West Midlands area where it is felt that already the area is too dependent on the motor car industry, where a substantial fall in the demand for manufactured goods is foreseen, where there is a shortage of liquidity on the part of manufacturers, made worse by Government measures, and where it is felt that the situation would be made much worse if the Government adopted a harder line in directing industrial development out of the West Midlands? Therefore, will he confirm that there is no question whatever of the Government adopting any policy to move any future industrial development out of the West Midlands?
    Mr. Fraser: There is a contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman has said. The West Midlands area is very much reliant upon engineering. Diversification is one of the objects of Government policy. Although it is not a matter for my Department, I know of no immediate proposals for the moving out of industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Industry is considering an application from the British Leyland Motor Corporation for an industrial development certificate.

    Labour Costs (Survey)
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide, free of charge, expert assistance to those employers who have been required to furnish information in a questionnaire entitled Survey of Labour Costs, 1973.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Employers who encounter any difficulties in completing such statistical returns are invited in the covering letter which accompanies the questionnaire, to seek help from my Department.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the high cost to small businesses of assembling all the information which is requested in the questionnaire? Is he aware that much of the information is already given to the Treasury? Is he further aware that the questionnaire contains no fewer than 72 questions? It is wholly unreasonable for a firm to have to collect all the information. I am aware that this practice has been going on for a long time, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take steps to ensure that in future these quesionnaires are severely limited to the minimum possible requirements?
    Mr. Booth: This survey is being conducted at the request of the European Economic Community. All the information which is being collected is required by the Community. Therefore, it may be in the hands of this House and the people of this country to decide whether this cost will continue to be borne by employers.
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the bulk of the information demanded is not about the EEC. Is he also aware that the collecting and collating of information can be a tremendous burden on small firms which do not have large clerical staffs? Will he try to cut down the necessity for some of these questions?
    Mr. Booth: I assure the hon. Lady that I am not anxious to heap unnecessary work upon any firms. I appreciate that difficulties may be created in providing the information. That is why my Department, on request, gives advice through specialist staff by explanation and clarifi
    1132
    cation on how to complete the questionnaires. However, we cannot send staff to the firms to do the work for them.

    Social Contract
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in establishing the social contract.
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress of the social compact between the Government and the trade unions.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress made regarding the social compact between the Government and the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Foot: Some good progress has been made. Much the most important development in this field has been the publication of the TUC General Council's report on "Collective Bargaining and the Social Contract", published on 26th June, which I believe provides a constructive framework for pay negotiations after the compulsory pay controls are abolished.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel on reflection, however, that the broadcast he made during the weekend about the social contract was unforgivable and unjustifiably complacent? Does he accept that even those of us who wish him success in the venture upon which he has embarked are nevertheless fearful of the effects of a failure? In view of the catastrophic inflationary effects if he does not succeed in achieving the social contract, will the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans he and the Government have in mind?
    Mr. Foot: No one who heard what I said on Sunday could have described it as complacent. My first sentence was that no one in his senses could doubt the seriousness of the situation that the Government had to face. I said that right at the beginning. What I also said was that the situation was not worse today than it was at the end of February and the beginning of March. Indeed, in many respects it is much better—the whole House will agree about that—because

    1133
    at that time we were involved in an industrial smash-up which was the worst since the 1920s or the 1930s. Of course, the situation has improved.
    As for the dangerous inflationary situation no one in the Government is denying the dangers, but those dangers were there when we took office. What we have been doing is to take steps to prepare to curb that situation, and the social contract is one of the essential measures for achieving that objective.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the Secretary of State realise that there are some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, who will wish the social contract success and wish him well in his task while maintaining a certain scepticism about the likelihood of success? Does he accept that no one in this country, either wage earner or salary earner, can expect more than compensation for the increase in the cost of living over the next 12 months at least? Does he really believe that the social contract will be sufficiently binding to ensure that? What teeth will he put into it to ensure that it will work?
    Mr. Foot: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sceptical enthusiasm, if that was what it was, or enthusiastic scepticism. I am not quite sure which way round we should have it. But we cannot guarantee that it will be successful. We believe, however, that the statutory system was an almighty failure. Therefore, we are setting out on a different system. We shall discuss the new system in the House next week. The Pay Board order is being laid today. Assuming that the Prices Bill receives Royal Assent today, the order will be laid and we shall discuss the matter next week. This refers to the social contract. The abolition of statutory controls is an essential part of the social contract.
    The trade unions would certainly not have been prepared to enter into any such arrangements and understandings if it had not been that we were carrying out our pledge in that respect as in many others. Therefore, that is part of the social contract too. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when we come to that. As for putting teeth into it, if by that the hon. Gentleman means restoring compulsory controls, we have no intention of doing that.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement of policy issued by the TUC is very good reading? Does he support the conclusion that priorities should be given to negotiating agreements which would have beneficial effects upon efficiency, reform the pay structure and improve job security to complement the action that has been taken by Mr. Len Murray, the General Secretary, and the TUC General Council in delivering their side of the contract?
    Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. The whole country owes a debt to Mr. Len Murray for the way in which he has spoken on these matters both at trade union conferences and elsewhere, and I hope that we shall have support from it. Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to that special feature in the statement of the TUC. The matter raised in the previous question by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was already referred to in that document. I invite the House to read the whole document and to study it in detail.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the activities of National Health Service employees at Charing Cross Hospital fit in with the social contract?
    Mr. Foot: The argument that they were having was not concerned with pay questions or questions directly concerned with the social contract. That matter, therefore, does not arise.

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mr. Kinnockasked the Prime Minister what staff changes he has made to the CPRS since his administration took office.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir. Three members of the CPRS have left voluntarily and there have been three new appointments.
  Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those three voluntary leavers have all left the "think tank" for the rather muddier waters of the Conservative Central Office? Is he aware that the first of them, Mr. Brian Reading, was the man who coined the phrase "at a

  1135
  stroke" and that the second of them, Mr. William Waldegrave, was speech-writer to the Leader of the Opposition during the recent General Election? Bearing this tradition in mind, should not my right hon. Friend release Mr. Adam Ridley, who is the latest leaver, and not merely release him but give him a car to take him over to Conservative Central Office, where he can join his erstwhile colleagues in giving further assistance to the Leader of the Opposition, who obviously needs it?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The first two cases are not contained within the Question, which relates to the period since the present administration took office. Mr. Reading, I understand, was in the CPRS but he left to go to journalism, I think. The second gentleman mentioned by my hon. Friend left the CPRS before the change of government. The third is a Civil Servant who would normally have gone back to the Treasury. He is resigning from the Civil Service after a three-year secondment from the Treasury to the CPRS. What happens to him after that is not a matter for concern for those in charge of the CPRS. I understand that he will be having a suitable period of quarantine before going to any future employment.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it true that the "think tank" is currently hawking its favours around Whitehall to try to find something to think about?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have never heard anything further from the truth. This organisation, which has now served two Governments, is an extremely valuable new instrument in government. Last week for the first time—a new precedent—we published one of its reports, which was extremely valuable in provoking public discussion. It is an entirely non-political organisation which serves the Government by taking up particular questions either of current concern or of long-term concern to the nation which sometimes under successive Governments, have not been given the depth of study which they might have had.
  Mr. Heath: As certain names have been mentioned in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in all
  1136
  three cases propriety has been observed to the full? Will he confirm that in the first place Mr. Reading had been at the Department of Economic Affairs before he came to the research department, was then recruited to the Cabinet Office, moved on promotion from the Cabinet Office to the CPRS and then left to join the Economist, which was a perfectly proper arrangement for him to undertake? Will the right hon. Gentle man confirm that the suggestion that the second person, Mr. Waldegrave, came from the Conservative research department into the CPRS is quite untrue? He followed a normal university career, both here and in America, and was recruited to the CPRS and left before the General Election. In the third case, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it was an entirely Civil Service career in the DEA, the Treasury and the CPRS and that there will now be a proper period, as with all civil servants, before he takes up other employment? I see no reason for criticism of either the CPRS or of any individual.
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it entirely unrelated to the Question if I congratulate him in joining me at the age of 58 today. He usually does this two or three months afterwards. I can assure him that it is a very pleasant age at which to live.
  On the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has put, I think I had already confirmed most of what he said in relation to Mr. Reading, whose help the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt never forget. What he said about Mr. Waldegrave is entirely true. He left before the General Election. Mr. Ridley is now following the normal quarantine provisions for the Civil Service.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his good wishes. He will have noticed from the morning and evening Press that age is not the only thing in which we appear to be joined together today.
  The Prime Minister: Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have been misled for some years over these things before. I thought our majority this year would have been much higher.

  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech on industrial policy which he made at Huyton on 14th June.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 2nd July to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. Adley: In that speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to national priorities. Is not the reality of our industrial relations situation that a coal miner or a Shell oil refinery worker gets what he wants but that a radiographer, a teacher or a nurse must suffer? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's industrial policy now the survival of the strongest? Is that really what the Labour Party stands for in 1974, and is that perhaps why there are beginning to be defections from it?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Member is able so succinctly to explain the whole philosophy of Conservative wages policy and Conservative industrial relations. They led, of course, to the three-day working week and the confrontation with the whole trade union movement. Most of the problems from which we suffer today—I shall come to the Stan-low and the Shell workers in a moment—relate to some of the extraordinary reports from and the rigid bureaucracy imposed by the Conservative Party upon the Pay Board, which will soon, of course, be consigned to the lumber room of history.
  On the Shell deal, I understand that the situation is a little confused. It has been accepted in one area but not in another, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is keeping a close watch on the matter. We have noticed before under successive Governments, and stage 3 and the Pay Board are still supposed to be in force, that capital-intensive industries often start a situation by offering a generous wage increase because it does not affect profits or prices very much, and this may be what has happened in the case of Shell.
  Mr, Arthur Lewis: As a means of saving the time of the House, and to enable hon. Members to put more important
  1138
  Questions to my right hon. Friend, will he consider arranging always to circulate his speeches, if need be personally and to every Conservative Member, since the Opposition seem so anxious to read them? Such a course would save the time of the House.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think this is a familiar practice. As soon as speeches are made by the Prime Minister they are placed in the Library and Questions follow as quickly as possible there after. But I noticed the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), in whose constituency I shall have the privilege of bidding him farewell when I am up there this week—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are the one who is going."]—because the hon. Member has a very short period to sit in this House. I should like to feel that in that short period he had shown great ingenuity in anticipating these matters by asking me to go there, because he will now know that I am going to his constituency on Friday night.

  COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
  The Prime Minister: My Commonwealth colleagues and I have already agreed to meet in Jamaica on 29th April 1975.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply, but does he appreciate the urgent need for an early meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in order that he may be made aware of the unanimous view of the Commonwealth that it would be disastrous for Britain to leave the EEC, not only for Britain—[Interruption]—but also for each and every member of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Member had a very close connection with Commonwealth matters some time ago, but he is not nearly so well in touch today. He will know that the New Zealanders and others have been severely prejudiced, as have all the countries covered by the sugar agreement, by the deplorable terms the Conservatives accepted in 1971.
  Mr. Stonehouse: In anticipation of the meeting, has my right hon. Friend had any communication from the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia about the recent French nuclear tests? Is it proposed that the Commonwealth should take any steps about the matter?
  The Prime Minister: We are of course in touch with the Prime Ministers concerned. We have indicated to the House our view on the tests, regretting that they are taking place but at the same time welcoming that the President of France has said that this will be the last series.
  Mr. Heath: Is not the time coming when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should tell the House clearly that the view of Commonwealth Governments is that it is wrong for the British Government to cause uncertainty by renegotiating the treaty terms? There are many other hon. Members who are fully in touch with Commonwealth Governments and Commonwealth leaders, and those Governments have expressed their view clearly to us. New Zealand is greatly worried by the delay that is now ensuing in the review of its own terms as reached under the Treaty of Accession as a result of the time taken by the Government. That is the situation in the Commonwealth. As for the sugar agreement, the Prime Minister knows that we are not getting the amount we should get under the agreement because of world prices, which have nothing whatever to do with European prices. It is time the Prime Minister told the House clearly that the Commonwealth does not want this country to leave Europe.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point in his statement. It is certainly the case that while negotiations are going on, which will then lead to a decision by the British people—against the right hon. Gentleman's wishes—as to whether we should stay in the EEC, the Commonwealth countries are asking for a fairer share of the development aid, and we are being extremely active on their behalf. I have heard from no Commonwealth country the statement that we should not have engaged in renegotiations.
  This is a matter for the British people. It is a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman must be ashamed of the terms he negotiated. He supports our engaging
  1140
  in renegotiations, so why does he not say so? If he did not support renegotiations, he would not have tried to win votes by putting the word "renegotiation" in his party's manifesto at the last election. "Renegotiation" was his phrase. New Zealand wants to be free to sell goods to us because, especially at a time when the commodity situation—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) should regard his record in this matter with humility and sit in silence. New Zealand is well aware of the problem of selling its goods in a situation where commodity prices are falling. It wants to be able to keep the British market open, a situation which the right hon. Gentleman did nothing to defend.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's other question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The right hon. Gentleman put a whole number of questions to me, and however unpalatable it may be to the Opposition I intend to answer them because he will have to defend his position in the General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Sooner than the right hon. Gentleman wants. As for his question about Commonwealth sugar, of course there is a world shortage of sugar; of course the Commonwealth can sell it elsewhere. My Department negotiated the agreement in 1951 on the basis—[Interruption.] It was thrown away by the Conservatives. That agreement was based on a continuing secure market for the Commonwealth producer in this country, and that we are determined to achieve whether the Leader of the Opposition wants it or not.
  Mr. Heath: Perhaps the Prime Minister should ask his Home Secretary and the 68 other Labour Members who voted for the agreement we made whether they are ashamed of the terms which were negotiated, because the Home Secretary knows, as did the former Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Lord George-Brown, that they were better terms than the present Prime Minister could have got in negotiation. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to quote the whole of our manifesto be will be telling the House that we said that renegotiation is a continuous process, which goes on the whole time in the Community. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said that he will not change the treaty

  1141
  or the Treaty of Accession. He is carrying on the process which every country which is a member of the Community does. It goes on the whole time.
  This is a complete charade to cover the differences in the ranks behind the Prime Minister, but none the less a very dangerous charade. When the election comes, we shall certainly be able to face the electorate on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a General Election, may I ask him whether it will be announced by himself or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Employment?
  The Prime Minister: It will not be announced this time by Lord Carrington or by a whole series of former Conservative Ministers, most of whom have now left the Conservative Front Bench. It will be announced in the proper manner and, in accordance with the precedents over many years, the right hon. Gentleman will be given prior notice.
  As to the Common Market terms, all my right hon. and hon. Friends fought the last General Election on our manifesto, which set out the demand for renegotiations and for a final decision by the British people through the ballot box, which is rejected by the anti-democrats on the Opposition benches. We fought the election on that and we shall fight the next election on it as well.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, may I remind the House that we are not yet fighting the election.
  Mr. Heath: Why was the Prime Minister so—
  Mr. Tomlinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Question Time a duologue, or can anybody join in?
  Mr. Speaker: That is what I often wonder.
  Mr. Heath: May I ask the Prime Minister why, in view of what he has just said, he persisted in saying that it was anti-democratic until July 1971, twice declaring that a referendum would be unconstitutional and entirely against the traditions of this country? In his own words, he said that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both agreed that there should not be a referen
  1142
  dum. Why, now that he has changed his mind to suit his own circumstances, does it suddenly become democratic?
  The Prime Minister: Because we made it clear, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that we would not take the country into the Common Market without the wholehearted consent of the British people. The right hon. Gentleman rejected that pledge. We have made an honest woman of it.
  Mr. Thorpe: May I intrude into this duel between two old contemporaries and revert to the question about the Commonwealth? Has the Prime Minister considered paying an urgent visit to Canada? Is he aware that he would find that the Parliamentary Liberal Party there has increased in number and that, therefore he would feel entirely at home?
  The Prime Minister: I have always had the best possible relations with Mr. Trudeau. Perhaps in these pre-coalition days between the major and the minor Tories the right hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend opposite—the Leader of the Opposition—that public opinion polls, on which he is today pinning a pathetic faith, are not always right.
  Later—
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must protest on behalf of back benchers on both sides of the House about the virtual monopolisation of Prime Minister's Question Time by the exchange between the two Front Benches. May I point out to both right hon. Gentlemen concerned that if this is a foretaste of what we shall have at the next bloody election, the country is going to be bored to bloody tears.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No doubt both right hon. Gentlemen will give appropriate weight to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker Before 10 o'clock last night I tabled two amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, but they are not available in the Vote Office today

1143
This is a serious matter, and I should be grateful for your help in regard to it.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order. I shall look into the matter he has raised. In the meantime, I can give him the assurance that, as he handed in his amendments in due time, I shall not treat them as starred amendments for the purposes of selection tomorrow.
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): Further to that point of order. I must apologise to the House for the present arrangements, but there is the probability of a diffusion of functions between the emergency printing being done in various ways and the work of the House. The amendments were delivered in accordance with the usual practice, and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman consults the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS(COMPTON REPORT)
Mr. Speaker: I now wish myself to make a statement.
On 22nd October last I informed the House that I had invited Sir Edmund Compton to undertake a review of the administrative services of the House, with particular reference to organisation and staffing. Sir Edmund has completed his task, and the report is now in my hands. I am formally laying the report on the Table today. Thereafter it will be printed and made available as soon as possible.
I will now enter into consultations about setting up the small committee of Members to which I referred in my earlier statement.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will wish me to express the gratitude of the House to Sir Edmund Compton for the considerable time and effort he has devoted to this task and for the speed with which he has produced his report.

HUNTERSTON (DEVELOPMENT)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I begin by apologising for the length of the statement I wish to make.
With permission, I would like to inform the House of my proposals for Hunterston. A fuller statement of the strategy the Government will adopt, together with the conclusions I have reached on the planning applications now before me, has been placed in the Library.
My principal concern is to ensure that the limited area of flat land at Hunterston is used by industries which both require access to exceptionally deep water and will make a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. Nothing less would justify the serious environmental sacrifice which is inevitably involved. Three major industrial uses have so far emerged as candidates for the use of the site: steel, oil refineries and gravity platform construction for North Sea oil development.
I deal first with steel. Present plans envisage the expansion of the steel industry in Scotland by some 25 per cent. over the next 10 years. I am glad to tell the House that the British Steel Corporation has now decided to build a direct reduction plant at Hunterston, the first of its kind in Britain, which will produce 400,000 tonnes a year of iron feed for the electric are furnaces in Scotland and elsewhere.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: When?
Mr. Ross: The cost of this will be around £15 million to £20 million. In addition, work has started on the construction of the iron ore terminal at Hunterston, and together these two projects amount to a commitment of £55 million to £60 million in steel industry development on the peninsula. Hunterston is also one of the sites in the West of Scotland under consideration for the corporation's new electric are plant announced in the White Paper on the Ten Year Development Strategy for Steel, plans for which are nearing completion. Together with the developments at Ravenscraig, these new projects will give Scotland a total steelmaking capacity in modern plant of 4½ million tonnes.

1145
I consider it essential that sufficient land remains available at Hunterston for longer-term steel development additional to these projects. The continued growth of this industry is essential to a large part of Scotland's industrial economy, and Hunterston is without doubt one of the best sites available for future steel development in North-West Europe. Not to safeguard sufficient space for this purpose would be a serious failure to accept our responsibility for the future.
The next category of industry is oil refineries. Following a public inquiry in 1970 my predecessor decided against zoning land for a refinery at Hunterston on the application then submitted by Chevron. I now have before me revised applications by both Chevron and ORSI. My predecessor's memorandum of 30th May last year indicated that although a refinery on its own was unlikely to be acceptable, the case for one could be considered if it was associated with other developments which would bring substantial benefit to the Scottish economy.
In particular it was suggested that a refinery might be associated with steel development if refinery gas were supplied on attractive terms to meet the requirements of a direct reduction plant. However, the British Steel Corporation has now told me that it no longer sees any significant advantage in this form of energy supply as compared with the natural gas which will shortly be available from the North Sea. Furthermore, I am now advised that future steel developments, particularly an integrated basic oxygen plant and the finishing processes that might be associated with it, could need some of the land which is now the subject of the refinery applications.
I have also had to pay special attention to the conclusions now reached by the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee after a very lengthy and thorough study. The committee's report suggests that provided certain stringent safeguards on siting, design, construction and operation of the installations were strictly observed a refinery would not be incompatible with requirements to safeguard the two nuclear power stations already on the peninsula. My concern is first for life and property in the area, including any risk to a major source of electric power supply to the Scottish economy: and. secondly, to permit no development at
1146
Hunterston which could subsequently constitute an unduly inhibiting effect upon further development of land for which the site is specially suited. I have therefore concluded that I should be justified in permitting refinery development, with all the safeguarding requirements that this would entail, only if there were over-riding reasons for the Hunterston site being chosen for such development. I am not persuaded that such reasons exist.
I therefore have it in mind to reject both applications, but I do so with regret, and in full recognition of the scale of the developments themselves, the substantial projects associated with them and of their potential for future development in the economy.
Finally, I come to the question of oil platform sites. The rapid growth in the volume of proven North Sea oil reserves and the urgent need for the United Kingdom to reduce her dependence upon imported supplies have created a pressing demand for gravity production platforms for this new industry. Substantial benefits would be derived both for Scottish industry and employment and for the United Kingdom balance of payments from suitable construction sites. I have already a planning application for the construction of these platforms at Hunterston and other projects are expected to follow.
This type of development is not incompatible with the long-term use of land for the steel industry and recent studies indicate that Hunterston could well provide good sites for gravity platform construction. Accordingly, I have decided that land should be available for this purpose at Hunterston, and further work is in hand to settle the detailed siting and appropriate scale of development.
Those who get orders for platform construction must do so on their merits and not simply because they have access to a site. I intend therefore to ensure that the Hunterston sites will be available only to firms who obtain orders, and I propose to enter into consultations with Ayr County Council and with the Hunterston Development Company to discuss these matters.
I have reached these conclusions on the most careful examination of all the evidence now before me. I am to meet Ayr County Council on 26th July to receive

1147
its views and to consider action before further planning decisions are taken. My Department is writing to Chevron and ORSI today informing them of my conclusions and inviting their comments prior to my finally deciding their applications.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and particularly his confirmation that Hunterston is to be used for the development of the steel industry. I believe that that is a sensible use of the very special assets which we have at Hunterston and which have important implications for the whole of the Scottish steel industry.
I have some questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he confirm that the total Scottish capacity—I believe that it is a total of 4½ million tonnes—is no greater than that which was proposed by his predecessor in the Conservative Government in December 1972? Therefore, the Secretary of State is going no further with the capacity of the Scottish industry than the previous Government in December 1972.
Secondly, I find it significant that no decision has yet been taken on the new electric are plant and that no date has been given for the start of the direct reduction plant. Hunterston is an asset which is far too important for Scotland as a whole. We cannot afford to allow the site to be sterilised any longer because of delays on the part of the British Steel Corporation. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking that he will inform us of when the work will start.
Thirdly, what is the position of the ore pelletisation plant which has been proposed by private enterprise interests, involving private funds, and which makes good sense in terms of strengthening the Scottish steel industry as a whole?
Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any decision on Stewarton? That is particularly important because of the known lack of capacity in Scotland to cope with the refining of North Sea oil when it comes ashore. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall know without delay the Government's whole refinery policy? It is a matter which has very important planning implications throughout the whole of Scotland.
Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the importance of Hunterston. The location of deep water at Hunterston and various other matters saw the conception of steel development in the area.
We are, of course, making no change in capacity. What we are doing—and this is the first decision that has been taken—is in relation to certain probables and possibles that were in the White Paper of the previous administration. One thing has now been decided—namely, the decision to go ahead. That is the first step that can be taken and I think that it should be welcomed.
I now deal with the ore pelletisation plant. I received the private enterprise application yesterday from Ayr County Council. It is, of course, too early to say exactly what will happen. I have accepted the recommendation of the Reporter that Bloak Moss should not be specially retained for refinery or for petrochemical installations. I have, however, decided that 1,400 acres should be rezoned for clean industrial purposes.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the work will start on the steel plant? That is what matters to people in Scotland.
Mr. Ross: I cannot say when it will start. It could not start until a decision had been taken. That decision has now been taken.
Mr. Lambie: When we consider that the whole saga of the Hunterston development started in 1969 and that Ayr County Council's original proposals included detailed planning application for an oil terminal, an oil refinery petro-chemical complex, an iron ore and general users' terminal and green-field integrated steel works involving 20,00 jobs, this is surely a mouse of a statement—namely, an iron ore terminal, many promises and nothing else.
What guarantees has my right hon. Friend received from Dr. Finniston, chairman of the British Steel Corporation, of a starting date for the pelletisation plant and the electric are furnaces? Is this not an attempt by the BSC to pre-empt the whole of the Hunterston site until the year 2000? What guarantees will the Government give in their oil refining

1149
policy that the projected production of North Sea oil by the year 1980 of 150 million tons will be refined in Scotland at Hunterston for the benefit of the people of Scotland and that it will not be refined as some Opposition hon. Members want, in England and in Europe?
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must appreciate that there was an inquiry into Hunterston. The Hunterston business started before 1969 and the inquiry was one of the longest ever held. The decision about the Chevron refinery was given by my predecessor. I believe there were two statements, one in December 1970 and the other in February 1971. Many of the points he has raised were dealt with then.
Mr. Lambie: What is my right hon. Friend going to do? Never mind the past.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has had plenty to say about this over a long time.
Mr. Lambie: Five years.
Mr. Ross: I can appreciate much of his concern. Let me tell him this: the unique facilities of Hunterston were always foreseen, specifically and especially, as a safeguard for steel production in Scotland. It would be quite wrong for anyone, bearing the importance of that in mind, so to use that limited area of land to prevent such full development. My hon. Friend must appreciate that we have now made a start. There is the iron ore terminal and we now have the British Steel Corporation actually deciding to produce there.
Mr. Lambie: Nonsense.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: When?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was a member of the previous administration. He must appreciate that this or any other decision could have been taken a long time ago. For reasons best known to themselves, the last administration did not take any decision. Let him not ask me "Why?" and "When?" and all the rest. The fact is that we have made a start at Hunterston and we are not prepared to see the sterilisation of the land on the lines my hon. Friend suggests. I have specifically mentioned this question of
1150
the platform siting, which is of considerable importance at the moment.
Mr. Corrie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I probably stand alone in the House today in congratulating him, representing, as I do, the people of the area in question? Does he appreciate that this has been a sore point and a tremendous talking point for the last few months? Is he further aware that I am pleased to hear that he has come out against petro-chemicals on that site, particularly in view of the safety angle? I am certain that people in the area will accept that steel will now go there because the terminal is already there. I sincerely hope that all the environmental problems which arise with this industry will be taken care of. The right hon. Gentleman has already given me a promise on that and I am sure he will hold to it. The ore terminal has made a tremendous mess of the area—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put his remarks in an interrogative form.
Mr. Corrie: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the environment will be looked after?
Mr. Ross: We are doing this at present. Ayr County Council has been passing to me the comments of the local population about the developments presently taking place there. I am sure that that will continue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned safety. This is one of the most important things. People cannot shrug it off. There are already two nuclear power stations on this peninsula. We have just had a report from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee. I can tell the House that this is one of the things that I had to weigh most carefully. I had to take into account the power presently available and that which will be available from those stations in future, and the risk to other industries. There are considerations which apply to industries not necessarily tied to this site.
Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be some concern in many quarters of Scotland about the decision to sterilise part of the land at Hunterston for the British Steel

1151
Corporation—with which I agree—without having obtained a target date from the corporation for the ore reduction plant or the integrated plant? Will he accept that there are many who believe that it is the correct strategy to leave a seaboard site for the Scottish steel industry in future? Nevertheless, will he convey to the BSC the view that there is a limit beyond which no one in Scotland can retain that site for ever without some definite proposal for development? Is he aware that everyone welcomes the decision about the building of oil platforms at Hunterston because many of us believe that it is time that West Central Scotland got a share of the developments associated with North Sea oil?
Mr. Ross: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes this attitude. I can readily appreciate the concern felt by people as a result of the delays. One of my tasks in recent months has been to bring the British Steel Corporation to the point of deciding that the pelletisation plant would be there. This was said clearly in the White Paper produced by the previous Government. As for the are furnace plant, there are three suitable sites in Scotland—Hallside in Lanarkshire, Glengarnock in Ayrshire—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—
Mr. Lambie: It is not going there.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has not asked very many questions about that. The other site is Hunterston. I appreciate the difficulty concerning the social aspects of such decisions and I agree that we do not want to wait too long. I should like to get a commitment about this major plant as early as possible—a commitment to the new generation of steel plant for this area. But we cannot let the land go and lose the opportunity. I know that the British Steel Corporation considers this site as one of the best, the best probably, in North-West Europe. Because of that I am confident that we shall get that final decision.
Mr. John Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has announced today has most disquieting aspects for the future of industry? Is not the truth that this quite exceptional
1152
site, as I understand it, is to be frozen, made immobile, until such time as the British Steel Corporation in its own good time—and now it is assured that no one else will use it—takes some distant decision on it? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it represented one of the great potential industrial sites? Is he aware that what he has done is to cut across the whole question of the environmental characteristics of Hunterston and given to it an uncertain industrial future which is totally unsatisfactory?
Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman might well have said that to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last administration. He was a member of that administration and I suppose had considerable influence at the time, in addition to having experience in one of the industries concerned. It is not for him to tell me anything like that when we are actually making a start. I have already given a pledge that I am not prepared to see Hunterston sterlised in this way.
Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, subject to seeing the details of his plans in the Library, this statement will be widely welcomed in Scotland and for reasons quite contrary to those put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)? Does he agree that his decision ends much of the uncertainty surrounding the development of this site? Presumably he has some forecasts of employment prospects for the area in the fairly near future. Presumably there will be housing requirements. Has he any plan to increase the resources of the Scottish Special Housing Association so that it can cope with these as well as with the Northern oil developments and its traditional programme elsewhere in Scotland?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at this particular site, which is an isolated site, a certain infrastructure is already available and housing can easily be coped with by the local authorities. If they require help we shall be able to give it. There is considerable male unemployment in the area, around 5 per cent. There will be a considerable number of jobs, in the first instance in construction, some of which is going on at the present time. We have to bear in mind the balanced development of this

1153
site. I appreciate the feelings of some of my hon. Friends about nothing being done until the end of the century. That is something we are not prepared to accept.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. As a Member who represents most of the steel interests in Scotland—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call the hon. Member.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, given the inequalities of the site, the announcement he has made today will be greatly welcomed in Scotland? Will he accept that had there been a Scottish Regional Department it would have been much easier to force the two corporations to start development earlier than they might have done? Will he also accept that his decision about the oil refinery will also be welcomed since that can be placed in another part of Scotland, as it is not essential that it should go to Hunterston. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made any assessment of the number of workers who might be engaged in due course as a result of steel development and the oil platforms?
Mr. Ross: It would be very difficult to make a definite estimate of the number of workers to be involved since that would depend entirely on the number of platform sites made available. I visualise that there will be more than one, as there is capacity for more than one. There could be as many as 400 jobs per site. There were 800 people working at a site I recently visited at Methil although we must not suggest that there is continuous work there. In relation to his general welcome, I entirely agree that this is a balanced and sensible approach; and it is time the uncertainty was ended as far as the two oil companies are concerned.
On the hon. Member's attitude to an independent steel corporation, I hope he will turn his mind back to what happened when Colvilles were on their own and Sir Andrew McCance told them he could not find the money for his own developments, far less go ahead with the steel strip mill that we were pressing for, so that the hon.
1154
Gentleman's comment is not justified by his experience.
Mr. Lawson: May I compliment my right hon. Friend on what I regard as the wisdom with which he has approached this matter and particularly on the fact that he has treated this unique site as a site which should be reserved for the type of development most suited to this area, ensuring that the site is not built up with forms of development that might very well take place elsewhere? May I ask my right hon. Friend, however, to bear in mind, in considering where the steel industry is to be sited, that we must ensure adequate development in the area? May I ask him to think particularly of Hallside, to recognise that most of the steelworkers are still to be found in Lanarkshire and that we want adequate development of the steel industry there? In the meantime I support the right hon. Gentleman entirely and so will all who have looked closely at what he has done at Hunterston.
Mr. Ross: I thank my hon. Friend. He will recall that he and I were very much concerned with ideas about Hunterston at the start, seeing it as of unique value to Scotland and the Scottish steel industry in the long term. He is quite right that we have to be careful about what we do because it has unique facilities. It was laid down by the previous Secretary of State that the industry to be put there should be dependent on these unique facilities—and there are other places for the oil refineries. I admit that there were times when, because of our desperation, we in North Ayrshire would have welcomed any such proposals. If we can get balanced and really good development of the steel industry, that is the right way in which we should proceed.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has thrown away a glorious opportunity to revitalise the West of Scotland and that all he has done is to put up a notice at Hunterston saying, "Private steel developers keep out"? The only specific thing he has said is that there is to be a £50 million direct reduction plant, with no guarantee of jobs or of a date when it may be coming. Secondly, another plant has to be reserved for Hunterston but no decision has been made by the British Steel Corporation to build there. Has he not

1155
thrown away several private development opportunities including one of £200 million involving 2,000 jobs?
Would he not agree that his hatred of private enterprise has compelled him to sterilise this site for the nationalised British Steel Corporation without one specific promise of date or jobs?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is full of surprises. He spent the last weekend telling us about the mistakes his Government made. His Government could have taken a decision on this. He was a member of it, but they did not take a decision. What he says now surprises me—or perhaps it shows how little influence he had with the previous Government, and that may be just as well. I should like to think his influence is continuously declining because most of what he has said is absolute nonsense and not in accordance with the facts.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that had it been left to the Scottish National Party there would have been no development at Hunterston at all because at the public inquiry in 1969 the Bute and North Ayrshire constituency party of the SNP gave evidence against any development at all taking place there? Would my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a need to pressurise British Petroleum into expanding its refinery capacity at Grangemouth? Could I advise my right hon. Friend that the only thing visible to the people of Scotland is the terminal which is the point at
which oil will flow away from Scotland rather than being refined in Scotland? In view of the decision he has accepted to site the refinery in Hunterston, will my right hon. Friend use his influence, through himself and the Secretary of State for Energy, to pressurise British Petroleum to expand their refinery capacity at Grangemouth?
Mr. Ross: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be interested in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I understand that at one time British Petroleum put forward certain proposals for increasing output at Grangemouth, and that may come about.

HUNTERSTON (DEVELOPMENT)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Mr. John Lee: I hope the House is to be given an opportunity to challenge this on a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly. This has to be put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order. The hon. Member can say "No" if he wishes.
  Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments):
  The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 52.

  Division No. 69.]

  AYES

  [4.10 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Archer, Peter

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Ashley, Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Atkins, Ronald

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bates, Alf

  Dempsey, James

  Hamling, William

  Beith, A. J.

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hooley, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Buchan, Norman

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Hunter, Adam

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jackson, Colin

  Cant, R. B.

  Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)

  Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  John, Brynmor

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Freud, Clement

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  George, Bruce

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Cox, Thomas

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)

  Golding, John

  Judd, Frank

  Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Graham, Ted

  Kelley, Richard

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

  Stott, Roger

  Lamborn, Harry

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

  Lamond, James

  Parry, Robert

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tierney, Sydney

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tomlinson, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest G

  Torney, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Phipps, Dr. Colin

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Watkins, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weitzman, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roper, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  White, James

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Whitlock, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sandelson, Neville

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)

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

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)

  Winstanley, Dr. Michael

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Small, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Moonman, Eric

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Donald Colemon and

  Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

  Steel, David

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Pardoe, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Sedgemore, Bryan

  Ashton, Joe

  Hatton, Frank

  Sillars, James

  Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

  Henderson, Douglas (Ab' rd' nsh're, E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Biffen, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Snape, Peter

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Spearing, Nigel

  Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

  Kerr, Russell

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Lambie, David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Cryer, G. R.

  Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)

  Watt, Hamish

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacCormack, Iain

  West, Rt. Hn. Harry

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)

  Madden, M. O. F.

  Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

  Ovenden, John

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)

  Edge, Geoff

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Wise, Mrs. Audrey

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

  Prescott, John

  Young, David (Bolton, E.)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.

  Mr. John Lee and

  Flannery, Martin

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Raphael Tuck.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered.
  That at this day's Sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974 not later than One o'clock or three hours after the commencement of the proceedings whichever is the later.—[Mr Mellish.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.18 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts.
The very mention of "planning" these days causes grave apprehension in the hearts of many people. Although I
1158
acknowledge that the initial Act introduced by the late Lord Silkin was vital to the proper planning of our nation, we have now reached the stage at which the ordinary folk are least considered when changes are made in the environment. The armoury of bureaucracy, both at national and local level is arraigned against the ordinary people.
Local authorities are not compelled to inform anyone of outline planning applications which they receive. If they so desire, they may insert advertisements in local newspapers, but it is hit or miss whether the people who are affected will get to know about what is going on.
Far too often people first hear about a planning decision when they hear the grinding of the bulldozers in a nearby field, lane or road. Not until then are they told by the local authority departments what the law is and how they can get copies of the Town and Country Planning Acts, but even if people were

1159
given 20 years to study those Acts, the probability is that they would not understand them.
One of the major effects of my Bill would be to make it obligatory for local authorities to inform individual householders of any outline application that might affect their environment and their lives and also to inform them in detail as to what that means. This would go much further than a mere advertisement in the local newspaper. The local authority would have to decide. I assume that the local councillors will know full well how many streets, roads or avenues will be affected. Every householder who may be affected will be individually informed if my Bill becomes law.
The second factor relates to public inquiries. Very often a situation can arise in which ratepayers in an area are appalled and annoyed at the prospect of a certain planning application but their local authority is in favour of it. They can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment for a public inquiry. Very often he grants it. What happens then? I have attended very many public inquiries. One has the feeling that ordinary people, when they come to the town hall to give their evidence why the planning application should not be proceeded with, feel that they have been arraigned before a court of law for some misdemeanour. The attitude of lawyers to people giving evidence places ordinary folk at a grave disadvantage. They cannot exploit or explain their case in a fitting manner for the benefit of the inquiry inspector or ultimately the Secretary of State. I say this in no sense of disrespect. It is a fact of life.
But in some parts of the country where a planning application is submitted the residents in that area may be wealthy enough to employ their own lawyers and town planners to represent them against the local authority and against the Minister. We know of a classic example in Cublington where those tactics proved successful. If they cannot afford to employ their own planning experts and lawyers, they stand very little chance of having their case properly presented.
The second provision of my Bill would allow that where local residents are properly registered as a residents' association
1160
or tenants' association with the local authority, and they wish to oppose a planning application, they will be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State for financial aid to assist them to proceed with their appeal.
Often when a planning application reaches the local town hall, the planning officers looking at it will say, "Yes, it is technically possible". For example, if one wishes to put a petrol station in the middle of the grounds of Buckingham Palace, that is technically possible—but it would hardly be considered desirable. When an inquiry is ordered by the Secretary of State, often the planning officers, who are paid for in the main out of the rates paid by the people they represent, say they cannot appear at the inquiry to give their evidence because they have already committed themselves to the technical detail.
But there is much more in any planning application than simple technical detail. The environmental effects on people's lives must be taken into account. Even if a planning application is perfect in its technical outline, it can nevertheless blur and mar the environment of the homes and the lives of ordinary people. This Bill would ensure that, even where planning officers might agree with the technical data, if the local authority at a public inquiry decided nevertheless that it would oppose a planning application, it would be the bounden duty of those planning officers to represent their council and that of the legal officers to represent the ratepayers who have engaged them.
The result will be that this Bill, if it passes into law, will strengthen, encourage and increase that vital element of participation in all planning measures of, by and on behalf of the ordinary people of this country. If they know they are receiving a square deal, if they know they are given an honest break, it will encourage them to become involved. It will also give them that right to protest. At the same time it will not only enhance and strengthen participation but it will widen the boundaries of true democracy.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth) rose—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order. It is the custom in this House for a Minister

1161
to be present to listen to the presentation of a Bill. It is a great disappointment that nobody from the Department of the Environment is here.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It may be a disappointment but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I never use a point of order as an excuse to speak. Am I allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to oppose the Bill in particular but to support it in general?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak only if he is opposing the application of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to bring in his Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Molloy, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Ioan Evans, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. John Lee.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. William Molloy accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Acts; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 18th July and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION
4.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution (Command Paper No. 5675).
On Thursday last I presented a White Paper on behalf of the Government. The steps announced in it followed the breakdown of the Executive on 28th May, following which there was a debate in this House when I made it clear that while I had not been prepared to negotiate on constitutional matters with the Ulster Workers' Council during the UWC strike, I was at all times willing to meet elected representatives. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had done so on a number of occasions. I further made it clear that I had already begun, and would continue, the task of exploring the views of political leaders in Northern Ireland.
It was in that context that the White Paper was presented last Thursday and it is in this further context that, as was announced then, two pieces of legislation will follow. The first is the Northern Ireland Bill, shortly to be taken through all its stages, and the second is the order renewing the Emergency Provisions Act which is to be taken tonight.
The debate today gives extra time for discussion on both those pieces of legislation. This is right given the importance of the issues involved. Tonight we are to take the order renewing the Emergency Provisions Act and next week, I understand, we are to take all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
On 28th May 1974 the Executive fell. It fell in face of the Ulster workers' strike. I have asserted that baldly in paragraph 26 of the White Paper, which says:
"In plain terms the Ulster Workers' Council in association with the para-military organisations brought down the Executive, which, in a spirit of partnership had undertaken the tasks of government in Northern Ireland since January 1."
It was not an industrial dispute and it was backed by para-military forces. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the

1163
right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) met my right hon. Friend the Minister of State they were accompanied by three members of the para-military forces.
Under the Constitution Act, the Executive could have lasted for four years, the lifetime of the Assembly under Section 27 of the Act, but only as long as it had the support of the Assembly. The Executive was increasingly under strain after the General Election of 28th February. It could last only as long as there was support for it in the Assembly. In the face of the stoppage, that support was not forthcoming. Democratic government can be only by consent. Consent was not forthcoming from the Protestant community. Indeed, it was from the Protestant community that there came the confrontation in the name of loyalty. The confrontation arose, they said, out of the facts of Sunningdale and their lack of support in particular for the Council of Ireland.
In addition, the unremitting campaign of the Provisional IRA and the violent actions of other extremist organisations, including sectarian murders of Roman Catholics, had created an atmosphere of increasing polarisation and distrust, unreceptive to the politics of consultation and compromise.
On the fall of the Executive I advised Her Majesty to prorogue the Assembly. It was quite clear that it was not possible to form a new Executive. I could not justify coming to this House in a few weeks' time to ask for a further period of prorogation. Dissolution was the only further alternative then open to me. There could then have been an election of a new Assembly leading to an Executive under the 1973 Act. I am quite clear that this was not acceptable. After that election I would have been back in the same position as I was on 28th May. The Constitution Act, it was made clear to me, was not acceptable to certain party leaders. Another way forward had to be found. This is spelled out in the White Paper and in the Bill.
I must at this point deal with the question of the day-to-day government of Northern Ireland which faced me after the fall of the Executive. There were provisions in the Northern Ireland Con
1164
stitution Act 1973 which enabled the situation to be dealt with in the short run. But we are now faced with something more than a mere interregnum between Executives. We are faced with the need for United Kingdom Ministers to carry on the government of Northern Ireland for a period of many months. We are, therefore, proposing that certain temporary arrangements should be made for the orderly government of Northern Ireland. The Bill to introduce those temporary arrangements will not repeal any part of the Constitution Act 1973. It will temporarily set aside some parts of that Act, but the great bulk of the Act will remain in full force.
The temporary arrangements fall into two parts. The first is legislation. It would clearly be impossible for this Parliament to find time to take Bills to deal with all the legislation that will be necessary for Northern Ireland. We therefore propose that there should be power for Her Majesty to make Orders in Council legislating for Northern Ireland on those matters on which the Northern Ireland Assembly has power to legislate. As during direct rule in 1972–73, it will be possible to make these orders only if they have first been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, unless they are extremely urgent, in which case they must be approved within 40 sitting days of being made. But although this power to legislate by Order in Council will exist, the Government will endeavour to proceed by way of Bill, passing through both Houses of Parliament in the normal way, wherever major legislation is required, or sensitive issues are involved.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that when we were in opposition we were concerned that so many important matters which were then before Stormont came before the House at a late hour and could not be criticised or amended. Knowing my right hon. Friend's attitude towards former Members of the Assembly who were not prepared to co-operate, I would point out that there were others in Ireland who were prepared to do so and should be able to make their voices heard. Therefore, would he consider talking to the Leader of the House about the establishment of some Committee of the House, as we urged in opposition, to consider

1165
draft legislation before it comes to the Floor of the House?
Mr. Rees: We will certainly consider that matter as my hon. Friend has described it. As I said the other day, I find that a strange doctrine coming from hon. Members—not my hon. Friend, of course—who made sure that the Assembly did not work and allowed measures to go through without any discussion. It is strange for them to raise their hands in horror now and say how terrible it is that something should go through this House in a short time. Nevertheless, of course this will be looked at. I presume that we are coming to the end of the Session and the matter would be one for a new Session, but I will of course consider it.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: Of course we can discuss this matter during the passage of the Bill, but I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he hoped to proceed as far as possible by way of Bill. Does that mean that it would be possible to deal by way of Bill in this House with matters which would normally have come before the Assembly, or must those matters appear as Orders in Council?
Mr. Rees: What I said was that, wherever major legislation is required or sensitive issues are involved, we shall obviously take this into account. But on other matters, one of the things that I shall have to put to the House very quickly is that Northern Ireland needs money. I would propose—I am thinking aloud here—to do this by Order in Council as a first thought under the procedures of the Bill which I hope will be passed next week.
The second part of our proposals concerns executive government. At present, the two Ministers of State and two Under-Secretaries of State at the Northern Ireland Office hold office as heads of the various Departments in Northern Ireland. They are techincally accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly for the way in which they discharge those offices. It is proposed that instead of this situation the Secretary of State should control all Departments in Northern Ireland with the assistance of his junior Ministers, and that he and his ministerial team should then be accountable to this Parliament for the discharge of their functions.
1166
These interim and temporary arrangements will provide for better government of Northern Ireland than would have been possible under the Constitution Act in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive. But I must make it plain that they are not, in the view of the Government, a satisfactory long-term solution. For that long-term solution, we have proposed a Constitutional Convention.
As is stated in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, the Government continue to believe that the best and most desirable basis for political progress in Northern Ireland would be the establishment of local institutions enjoying broadly-based support throughout the community. That is the essence of the situation, the essence of what we must all strive to achieve.
This Government recognise, as did the last Government in their White Paper of March 1973, that an effective system of government for Northern Ireland, as indeed for any other community, can work only if all sections of that community are prepared to let it work. The system of government proposed in the 1973 White Paper, and made law by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 was an imaginative step forward, and one which appeared both to the Government and to the Opposition of the day to offer a realistic opportunity for Northern Ireland and its people to find a way forward out of violence and instability.
We have now come to a point where we must take stock of the situation again. We must again face up, as the previous Government did, to the need to ensure that the proposals made for Northern Ireland's future system of government command the acceptance of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This must be remembered as we debate today and next week the Constitutional Convention for Northern Ireland. This will not be a legislative body but will be created solely for the purpose of considering, in the words of Clause 2(1) of the Bill,
"…what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
If the Bill is passed, it will be the law of the land. The Convention will be given an initial life of six months, but it will be dissolved earlier if it presents its

1167
report within that period; on the other hand, if it needs more time for its work, then, subject to Parliament, its term can be extended. The Convention's report, when it is completed, must be laid before Parliament. It may then be desirable to embark on a further test of Northern Ireland opinion, and to mount a referendum in that province; if that is required, then the Bill will permit the holding of such a referendum. It will be for this Parliament to decide what action should follow.
The final decision for matters within the United Kingdom rests with this Parliament. I make it clear, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in this House on 4th July, that any referendum on the link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not covered in the new Bill.
The Convention will be a Convention of Northern Irish people, elected by Northern Irish people, and considering the future of the Northern Irish people. We do not think it right that the Government should take a part in the Convention, or should seek to influence either its deliberations or its conclusions. There is, however, a considerable amount of information which could, and we think should, be made available to the Convention, particularly as regards procedures which might assist it in its work. We propose to publish before the elections to the Convention, information on procedures that might be followed with examples of historical precedents. It is worth looking in particular at the Newfoundland Convention of 1946.
In the same way as there are certain facts of life which the Government must face, there are also certain facts of life which the Convention must face. It is a fact that more public money is spent in Northern Ireland than the revenue raised there. This House has never hesitated to approve the transfer of additional moneys to Northern Ireland to help maintain standards there, or to bring standards up to those prevailing in other parts of the United Kingdom. In 1973–74 the support for Northern Ireland was £376 million. We have spelt this out in the White Paper. At a later stage we shall expand on this to consider certain other aspects. It is right that the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1168
should have all the relevant information before them. There are people in Northern Ireland who take a view that that is tantamount to UDI. If people are going to vote on this matter, it is important that the wider facts, not just the transfer of income, should be taken into account.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend talks of people in Northern Ireland and the Government having to face the facts of life. Is not one of the facts of life regarding the constitutional links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that so far in the history of this link the British people have never had an opportunity to express their views? Will my right hon. Friend say how the Government intend to implement the pledge set out in paragraph 45(b) namely, that the constitutional arrangement
"must be acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole…"
What sort of test of opinion will be given to the people of Great Britain?
Mr. Rees: My view is that when the Convention reports, then the House of Commons is the place in which to consider the matter. I like to believe that I represent the people of my constituency as a whole, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes the same view about the people of Erith and Crayford.
Captain Orr: The Secretary of State spoke about laying down certain matters which might be helpful for the Convention. Will he give a little more information about what he has in mind before we debate the Second Reading of the Bill?
Mr. Rees: Perhaps I could develop my argument during the Second Reading. I have already mentioned the question of finance, and also the matter of information, which is not confined just to the Newfoundland Convention, but in general those are two factors which should be taken into account.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the wording of the White Paper a little strange since paragraph 45(b) mentions the pattern being
"…acceptable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and to Parliament at Westminster."

1169
If what my right hon. Friend says is the case, why is it not just the Parliament at Westminster?
Mr. Rees: I well remember writing this, and the reason is that Parliament at Westminster represents the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Except on the Common Market.
Mr. Rees: I have responsibility for many things, but not for the Common Market.
It must not be forgotten that there is another side to this subject. If 97 per cent. of the taxpayers in the United Kingdom are to pay to support standards in Northern Ireland, they will expect that Northern Ireland itself will strive to attain a high standard of political responsibility there. If citizens in England, Scotland and Wales are to see young men from those countries lay down their lives in Northern Ireland, they will expect that the cause in which they lay them down will continue to be a just one.
These are facts which the Government must face. They are facts which the Convention must also face. The Government believe that there are other realities which cannot be ignored. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that there must be some form of partnership, because no political system will survive or be supported unless there is widespread acceptance of it within the community. Whatever the form of government and whatever label is attached to it, it is indispensable that it should be accepted by the community it serves. This has been put firmly in paragraph 45 of the White Paper.
In the discussions I have had with disparate groups of people, I have found that the question of power sharing has bitten deeply in the Province; it is something which is increasingly being understood. That may not be true of all aspects of the situation, and there may be differences of view, but I think it can truly be said that the subject of power-sharing has been taken on board.
The second fact is that there is an Irish dimension. Whatever their political views may be, the members of the Convention will have to recognise that Northern Ireland shares a common land frontier with the Republic of Ireland and that this,
1170
together with the common history of Northern Ireland and of the Republic, creates a special situation. I repeat that there is an Irish dimension. The facts of history cannot be denied. This dimension in no way alters the other basic fact of life—namely, that no changes can be made to link North and South without the consent of the people of the North.
The political situation cannot be considered outside that of law and order, the Army and the police. Since 1969 we have seen 1,045 people dead—218 soldiers, 44 members of the UDR, 54 police, 729 civilians—and a further 12,686 injured, and compensation payments totalling £72 million. We have seen organised bombing and burning by para-military forces, primarily but not exclusively the provisional IRA. We have seen some 200 sectarian murders, many of them Catholic victims of Protestant extremists.
In the face of all this, the British Army has been involved in defence of the Civilian population. The Downing Street declaration of August 1969 stated:
"The Northern Ireland Government have been informed that troops have been provided on a temporary basis in accordance with the United Kingdom's ultimate responsibility."
This temporary basis has continued for five years and the rôle of the Army has changed. The Army cannot replace the police, nor should it be asked to be a substitute. As part of the continuing evaluation of the situation, it is time to look at the crucially important problem of policing in Northern Ireland. Parts of Northern Ireland have for a long time not had a normal police service and ways must be found of providing it.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Secretary of State rightly says that security is the key to a great deal of constitutional advance. Will the Convention be entitled to discuss security and the control of security?
Mr. Rees: As far as I see the situation, the Convention is permitted—perhaps that is the wrong word to use for it sounds too pompous—to discuss any matter at all except that what it cannot discuss is the control of the British Army, which rests in this House.
Mr. Goodhart: What about the control of the police? If the Convention members have views on the police, it

1171
would be sensible for them to discuss it and, if they have a unified view on the matter, to put it to us.
Rev. Ian Paisley: With regard to the Army, would the Convention be permitted, if I may use that term, to discuss how the Army might do Army duty only and how the police could be introduced for certain duties?
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman's point bluntly adds up to the question of the rôle of the police. I am saying that to come to any conclusion about the controlling of the Army by any future assembly would not be on. But if it is a question of the rôle of policing, I see no reason why that should not be. The police will have their own rules and regulations, if that is generally accepted in the Convention, but this will be a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide.
In the words of the White Paper,
"Nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the Police Service and co-operate with it. This is not happening. If it did take place, it would also have a fundamental effect on the need for the Emergency Powers Act in Northern Ireland, including detention, the operation of which is currently being examined by the Committee sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Gardiner. It would also enable the Army to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in its present commitment and subsequently there would be no need for the Army to become involved again in a policing rôle. This is the aim of the Government and must be the wish of the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere."
Successive Governments have affirmed their intention to phase out detention as soon as the security situation permits. This is a matter of vital significance in Northern Ireland. Later tonight we shall be debating an order to extend the Emergency Provisions Act for a period of six months. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has arranged for a debate of three hours instead of the usual one and a half hours, so that I need not speak at length on this question now. I do however want to tell the House that I shall be starting today a carefully phased programme of releases linked to a resettlement scheme involving the community which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been working out in recent weeks. If the matter is raised in the
1172
course of the debate my right hon. Friend will be able to explain in more detail what is involved in his scheme.
The phasing out of detention—the complete phasing out of it—is possible if the para-military organisations, on both sides, are prepared to respond to the step I have taken today. It is a step which represents a small number of releases, but it could be the beginning of phased releases. What matters is the response in the community, in the context of violence. A cessation of violence would ensure that the releases continue.
The end of the Executive was serious, but not the end of the story initiated by previous administrations; power sharing, in particular, was a success. As I have said in paragraph 26 of the White Paper,
"If the Executive failed, the men who served in it did not fail. They disproved for ever the idea that it is not possible for Protestant and Roman Catholic to work together for the good of Northern Ireland and its people".
We must build on these foundations.
The Convention will provide an opportunity for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and through them the people of Northern Ireland to consider the issue. Early in the life of this administration we legalised Sinn Fein and the UVF. The opportunity is there for all to see whether, in the absence of a gun, people will support them. I say to all those who seek to use the gun and the bomb—try the ballot box. The excuse that the presence of the British stands in the way is no longer good enough.
This White Paper is not the last chance, but it is an important one. So often the people of Northern Ireland, right through the community, feel that we British do not understand their problems. Well, here is their chance.
I urge those who seek to represent the people of Northern Ireland to remember the realities spelt out in the White Paper. I urge them to consider what is said about power sharing and about the Irish dimension. I remind them, too, of the British dimension. In the end the last word is with the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The people of Northern Ireland have asked for an opportunity to settle their own affairs. It is the wish of all the British people that they use it for the

1173
benefit of both communities in the Province.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Although the circumstances that have brought this debate about may have been fortuitous—having the debate today is as much due to the non-appearance of HANSARD as anything else—the result is felicitous in that we are discussing the Government's White Paper and the continuance of the emergency provisions on the same day. This is highly appropriate.
It is often thought that there cannot be a military solution in Northern Ireland without a political solution. There is certainly as much truth in the converse—that there cannot be a political solution without a military solution. It is very unlikely that any political arrangements, however ingenious, carefully contrived, or fair minded, can work for long if terrorism continues at its recent level. Under such conditions of violence, or near war, people do not think in the ordinary democratic categories, or in what we used to think were the ordinary democratic categories. The Taoiseach understood that very well and expressed it well when he said that the power-sharing Executive had been brought down by the IRA, as we warned it would, and the campaign of the IRA has provoked a massive sectarian backlash. This has underlined the only kind of solution which can bring peace to Northern Ireland and security for the minority in that area.
The search for acceptable constitutional arrangements is inextricably connected with the search for peace, or something near it. We shall not achieve consent unless we achieve peace as well, and we shall certainly not achieve peace if we assume that terrorists are merely slightly misguided activists, or if we assume that terrorism is merely an undesirable adjunct to normal peaceful democratic conditions, and that it can be dealt with without disturbance to normal democratic conditions.
The whole House will agree that the emergency powers are necessary. There may be scope for improvement or deletion here and there, but this is not the time to consider them in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) piloted the Bill through
1174
Committee and is much better qualified to deal with these points, and he will be winding up for the Opposition.
I trust that the Gardiner Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the maintenance of an effective system of security. That is the least that it can do and the least we can do to help our security forces. The threat to law, democracy and liberty comes not from excess of powers being granted to our soldiers, or the police or the judiciary, but from the murderers, thugs and crooks who do not believe in any of these things. By all means improve the regulations, if improvements can be made, but let us not forget the conditions which make these regulations necessary.
The Secretary of State talked about phased releases and I hope that the Minister of State will go into this matter in considerable detail—
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The intention is to deal with them under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act procedure, because they fit into that. There is a small number of seven people involved, but releases can be continued and phased if violence is ended.
Mr. Gilmour: We are perfectly agreeable to dealing with them after 10 o'clock.
Meanwhile, as the White Paper implies in the passage on law and order in paragraphs 41 to 43, the Army must remain. I think that the overwhelming majority in this House is in favour of the Army continuing to perform the rôle which it has performed so superbly over the past five years. Anything which enabled us to lessen the Army's commitment in good faith would be widely welcomed though-out the country.
Before I leave the general subject of security I wish to raise two other matters. The first is the so-called guerrilla festival due to be held in Dublin and Belfast later this month. As the House will know, it is being organised by the Official Sinn Fein. It is described as the festival of anti-imperialist groupings. The idea, it is said, is to explain the so-called "struggle" of the Irish people with foreigners.
I read what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson had to say about this in the

1175 other place. I also read that the Secretary of State said here on 27th June that he would be looking at the conference very closely. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think that that is anywhere good enough. In the Belfast Telegraph of 12th June there is a report of a Press conference given by Mr. Sean Kenny, who is the director of international affairs of Sinn Fein. He is reported to have said:
"Those attending would be best described as 'left wing political activists'. Their own Governments might describe them as guerrilla leaders."
No doubt there are many places where such a festival could be held. It is not for me to say whether Dublin is a suitable place, but I am quite sure that Belfast is not a suitable place. After all that Ulster has suffered at the hands of terrorists in the past five years it is surely unacceptable to hold a festival of terrorism there. I can imagine almost nothing more provocative or objectionable, and the Government must see that the conference does not take place.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: When I said that I was looking at it I meant that I had to look at it in the context of legislation passed by the previous administration. I have powers to deal with it, but in dealing with it I have to be careful not to give it the free publicity which has been given to it in many other places. I understand that it has even applied to the Irish Tourist Board for a grant.
Mr. Gilmour: I read that it had done that. Of course, the Secretary of State must act according to his powers, but if he does not have the powers now he could easily get them within the next fortnight. He would not find this House denying him any necessary powers. If the conference takes place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it will cause grave offence not only in Ulster but also in England, and I have no doubt at all that it should be banned.
The second matter is the Irish Government's legal proceedings against this country in Strasbourg. The House will remember that the Irish Government made two main accusations. The first was that the United Kingdom was guilty of the administrative practice of shooting civilians. That ludicrous charge was dis
1176
missed peremptorily two years ago. The second charge was that the United Kingdom was guilty of the administrative practice of inhuman or degrading treatment, or torture, of persons held in custody.
An "administrative practice" is defined as official tolerance of acts of torture in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible, though knowing about such acts, take no action to punish those responsible or to prevent repitition of such acts, or that the higher authority, in the face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference. Therefore, the charges are made not only against officers in the Army and the RUC but against Ministers of the British Government. The Irish Government continue with those allegations despite the good relations between the two countries and despite the change of Government both here and in Belfast.
I am sure that these procedings are good for the lawyers, but that they are not for anyone else. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson), who was Attorney-General in the last Government, put it in a recent debate, it is time for an honourable settlement to be made. He went on to say that these allegations did a disservice not so much to those accused but to Ireland itself. It seems to me grotesque that those proceedings should be pressing on. I hope, even at this late hour, that the Republic will do the proper thing and drop them.
When we discuss political developments in and the political future of Northern Ireland one virtue is often lacking on this side of the Irish Channel, and that is humility. Humility was a virtue wholly lacking in the Prime Minister's lamentable broadcast during the strike. That broadcast lacked virtually every quality that one could imagine. There are at least two reasons why humility is appropriate over here. The first is that the weapon of the political strike which brought down the Northern Ireland Executive was not fashioned in Ireland. It was fashioned in England and Scotland. It was condoned by the Labour Party. Then it was copied and transferred to Ireland. That is a truth which is as obvious to many Government supporters as it is to the Opposition.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important to get this right. There were para-military forces involved who attended the meeting, with hon. Members present. I had to take account of what might have been done in the way of blowing up pylons, and so on. I shall not elaborate further. But it was not on all fours with what happened over here. I repeat that I am the son of a coal miner. We have never in my community used guns. That is the difference between the two. There is no comparison between the two.
Mr. Gilmour: Of course there are differences between the two. I accept that. However, on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will not say, I am sure, that there is no connection between the two. It is obvious that there is. There is often, regrettably, intimidation in strikes in this country, but where strikes are used for express political purposes—and these strikes have been widely reported on the other side of the Channel—[Interruption.] The constitution over here was in a sense subverted by direct action for political purposes. It will not do to pretend that what went on over here was legal and that what went on in Northern Ireland was different and totally illegal. The purposes for which a political strike was used over here were approved by the right hon. Gentleman, but apparently he did not approve of those purposes in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Carol Mather: Is not this a matter of principle? It is wrong of political parties to support political strikes. The same can be said of the Secretary of State for Social Services and her support of the recent strike over here, again entirely for political purposes.
Mr. Gilmour: The House is beginning to grasp that law, unlike peace, is indivisible. The more that both sides of the House bear that truth in mind the more likely we are to get our political arrangements right.
The second reason for some degree of humility on this side of the Channel is that it can scarcely be said that over the past few years British politics have been conducted with that moderation and self-restraint, co-operation between parties and resistance to extremism and extremists which we habitually commend to our fellow politicians in Northern Ireland.
1178
So, whoever is entitled to cast the first stone, I do not think that it is the Prime Minister.
I do not think that the Secretary of State can be blamed for lacking humility in his White Paper. He certainly cannot be accused of trying to play too prominent a part in future events. Indeed, he seems to have left himself virtually nothing to do.
Before coming to that aspect, I should like briefly to examine the alternatives that were open to the Secretary of State in the difficult decision that he had to make.
First, he could have done nothing, which is always a temping course of action. Apart from the difficulty of running the Executive in the way that it has been run since its collapse and apart from all the anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last week, he would have had next month to decide to prorogue the Assembly again or to summon it and try to form another Executive. I think that it is generally accepted that the present Assembly could not produce another viable Executive; but another prorogation was theoretically possible, though I do not think that it would have achieved very much. Indeed, it might merely have exacerbated the situation.
Alternatively, the Secretary of State could have announced elections to a new Assembly under the same Constitution Act. That course clearly has attractions, but I find it hard to believe that new elections would have produced an Executive. I think that it would probably have led to elections taking place earlier than they will under the White Paper. That, too, might have exacerbated the situation.
So we come to the Government's choice of a constitutional convention. That course obviously has dangers, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last week, but, as he also indicated, virtually all other courses of action have dangers, too. Anyway, this is what the Government have decided upon and we must hope that it works.
Turning now to Part 7 of the White Paper, "The Next Steps", the key paragraph is paragraph 45. I hope that I

1179
shall not transgress my own recommendations about humility by making a few remarks about them. It does not matter what phrases are used—details are not important—but that there has to be some form of partnership or power sharing, whatever it may be called, is self-evident. Perpetual rule by one party is bound to lead to abuses. That is as true in Ulster as it is in the North-East of England.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: And Sussex.
Mr. Gilmour: No. The abuses that have come to light in the north-east of England do not seem to be totally duplicated in Sussex.
It cannot be right for Ulstermen who sit on this side of the House to say that they accept power sharing but that they do not accept power sharing with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who, with Mr. Faulkner, played a distinguished part in the Executive. The reason for trying to exclude the hon. Gentleman is that he hopes ultimately for a united Ireland. I recognise that there is much natural fear and resentment in Ulster that a large minority want to belong to another country, but it cannot be right to try to deal with that problem by exclusion—by a kind of twentieth century Test Act. People's fitness for office must surely rest upon their behaviour rather than on their opinions. Apart from anything else, it is often difficult to know what their real opinions are. Therefore, we had better stick to their behaviour.
Instead of trying to deal with the problem by exclusion and loyalty oaths, the Unionists should try to deal with it by so governing Ulster that few people want a united Ireland.
The Unionists can surely point to the fact that Catholics in the North have certainly not voted with their feet against Northern Ireland. The percentage of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland has gone up since partition. Of some 950,000 Irish-born immigrants in Britain over 700,000 came from the South, and of the 200,000 from the North a good many must be Protestants. Therefore, the Catholics in Ulster have preferred to stay there rather than to go either to the South or to Britain. Proportionately fewer
1180
Catholics have come here from the North than from the South. Between partition and the 1966 census the population of the South declined and that of the North increased.
These figures should give Unionists confidence, and they surely reinforce the point that co-operation should depend upon the behaviour of those involved, not on their ultimate ambitions, which, in many cases, may not be fervently held.
Surely the proper dividing line should not be between those who want to stay British and those who want to join the South, but between those who work legally and democratically for their objective and those who are prepared to use violence to achieve their ends.
Secondly, one of the criticisms of the Sunningdale Agreement, one which seemed to me clearly invalid, was that it meant different things to different people. Those who wanted a united Ireland said that it pointed to a united Ireland and those who wanted to preserve the Union said that the Union was fully safeguarded. But there has never been a constitutional document which has not meant slightly different things to different people. Some element of ambiguity is present in all constitutions. It was and certainly is present in the classic American Constitution. Clarity is all right in its way, but it can be overdone.
Thirdly, there is the Irish dimension. Of course, geography dictates that there must be an Irish dimension, but the size of that Irish dimension seems to depend very much on the conduct of the Irish Government. If the Irish Government build up trust in the North by increasing co-operation on the border, by making an acceptable agreement over arrested terrorists and other matters, the Irish dimension will expand. If the Irish Government do none of those things the Irish dimension will shrink very sharply.
We wish the Government well on the path that they have chosen. It would be inappropriate now to express great optimism or great pessimism. But of one thing I am sure. We want Ulster to remain in the United Kingdom. We have been together a long time to the great mutual advantage of all, and that historic connection should not be severed now. We want to preserve the United Kingdom and we want to preserve Ulster as part of that United Kingdom. I am

1181
sure that it is possible to work out arrangements which will achieve that objective.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reconciliation with one's right hon. and hon. Friends, in one case of many years, is always an agreeable experience.
I make no bones about the fact that I came prepared with a very long speech offering the most gloomy forebodings about the White Paper. Fortunately, the House will not be burdened with that speech, for one very good reason. It argued that the White Paper had no hope of success unless one condition was fulfilled: that, at any rate, a start should be made on the phasing out of internment without trial. Therefore, it was with genuine delight that I heard my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks says that at 10 o'clock this evening—I have no reason to doubt his good faith—plans would be laid before the House for the ending of internment without trial.
In present conditions this may be much easier, because of the incident at Rathcoole, of which my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware, in which a number of Protestants were taken in. I now gather from Assemblyman Peter McLachlan, and many others, that the Protestant community for the first time has really understood what it is like to be taken into detention without trial. From what I am told from many sources—I can go only on this—now that the Rathcoole incident has taken place there has been some understanding of the anger of the Catholic community about what Long Kesh meant. Therefore, it may be easier because for the first time the Protestant community have some sympathy towards the gradual release of those who are detained—at any rate, those detained without trial—at Long Kesh.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is doing a grave injustice to the Protestant community by saying that it is only now and as a result of the arrest of Protestants and their detention that Protestans are turning against the concept of internment. Although it is a distasteful procedure, it is nevertheless necessary. I still regard it personally as necessary, as do the majority in Northern Ireland. That applies across the board, irrespective of
1182
religion. The Army has said frequently to me that it cannot operate effectively if internment comes to an end.
Mr. Dalyell: I should like to apply the kind of humility about which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was talking. One of my constant themes throughout this matter has been that people such as myself had better not lay down the law on what is good and proper in Ulster. I had better stick to my own precepts. I accept in that spirit what the hon. Gentleman has said.
That intervention leads me to my second point. If we let people out of detention without trial, we are asking rather a lot of the British Army. It must be said that when men have often risked their lives in order to put those whom they think are malefactors of some kind into detention in Long Kesh, it is asking a great deal for them to accept their release. As one who would have argued that detention without trial was one of the reasons why the British Army should come out of Ulster, I should like to leave the matter by saying that at least one must not only understand the view of the Chief of Staff but understand that this matter is pertinent to the morale of the junior and middle ranks of the Army, and that this is asking a lot. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make it known to the Army that some of us who have been wondering about its rôle and have felt that an army would not solve the historic problems of Ireland, would nevertheless like it passed on to the officers, NCOs and other ranks that what will be put before the House at 10 p.m. tonight is asking a lot of human nature and the British Army, and that if the Army accepts it, then it is enormously to its credit that it should do so.
I do not believe that speeches should be any longer than they have to be. With those remarks, I cut out all that I would otherwise have said and close my speech.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: It is important that we in this House should adopt as far as possible a consensus approach to the White Paper. Following the Secretary of State's statement last Thursday, it seemed to me that we were, at long last, moving in that

1183
direction. But I was a little disappointed by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose contribution seemed somehow to be out of tune. While others in the House seemed to be in a mood to put the past behind them, it seemed that he, almost alone, was inclined to look back in anger.
We can understand and sympathise with my right hon. Friend. Despite the many burdens of office, while he was Prime Minister he devoted a great deal of time and energy to Northern Ireland affairs, and he accepted full responsibility for the decisions and policies of the Government of which he was the head. One can understand his feeling of frustration over the collapse of those policies. But, just as we in Ulster are often advised to put the past behind us, I am confident that on reflection my right hon. Friend will overcome his disappointment and attune his thoughts rather more to the spirit of realism and even optimism which has been apparent in London and in Northern Ireland in recent days.
We have been further encouraged by the words of the Secretary of State and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). It seemed that both of them were indicating much firmer thinking on the future rôle and standing of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This will be welcomed by all right-thinking people. We who always had our doubts about the former policies, and expressed those doubts, have no intention of indulging in tiresome reminders of our attitude. We only ask that this time our views may not be entirely discounted. It may, perhaps, be that we could justly ask that this House listens to our views and might, at least, accept that we possibly know as much about Northern Ireland as do hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State deserves praise and congratulations, not for having conceded various points to various people on various matters but on his courage and realism. For a long time while he was the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs, we always felt that he was one of the very few hon. Members of the House who understood what it was all about. Although there were times
1184
when we had our reservations about the Northern Ireland policies of the Labour Party, we never had the fear that he could advocate a course of action without fully realising what the end product would be. That always brought us a great deal of reassurance.
It would be sheer impertinence for me to appeal to hon. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party to support him in his present efforts, but I say sincerely to those hon. Members on the Government side of the House who have taken a deep interest in Northern Ireland affairs—appreciating the sincerity of their political views and sympathies and, perhaps, even their religious sympathies—that they should recognise that the realistic approach of their present Secretary of State seems likely to safeguard most effectively the true long-term interests of the people of Ireland, with whose interests they are quite properly concerned.
I and, I think, all of my hon. Friends welcome the setting up of the Constitutional Convention, which was a proposal put forward to the Secretary of State's predecessors by those of us who survived from the previous Parliament. I am thinking particularly of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
The White Paper indicates that a firm decision has been taken to interpose between the Secretary of State and the Convention another person. Whatever the reasons for that decision, it raises a problem in the choice of chairman. The White Paper stipulates that he should be a person of high standing and impartiality from Northern Ireland. No one will quarrel with that. But "impartiality" must mean that he is one who is not and never has been a politician. This means, unfortunately, that he will be without political skill. Surely such skill is essential if he is to guide the Convention towards a solution which avoids the defects of the past experiments, which foundered precisely because they were a political nonsense.
What is even more important perhaps, is that the chairman will have to steer the Constitutional Convention away from a course which would lead to a head-on collision with the Government and the

1185
Parliament of the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that a distinguished judge would serve the purpose. However, while judges undoubtedly have or, at any rate, should have the ability to evaluate and marshal facts, they are seldom experts in assessing the merits of political proposals, which depend for their succes not on cold logic but on their appeal to human nature, with all its cussedness and unpredictability. Is there not, too, a danger that this Constitutional Convention may be regarded as something like a Royal Commission, whose proposals would be presented in due course to the United Kingdom Government, in which case the Government would then decide which recommendations they would accept and which they would reject? But in this case they would be dealing with an elected body responsible to those who elected it, and therefore would rejection of its conclusions not produce a conflict between the two elected bodies?
If the Secretary of State is not to be involved, may we ask what is to be the mechanism for keeping the Convention in touch with Westminster thinking as circumstances change and even, as seems possible, as the composition of the Government at Westminster may change before conclusions are reached? It is important that these questions should be faced, because I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have no desire to engage in the exercise of self-determination in defiance of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Now that we are being listened to, now that they are being listened to, they would prefer to build a structure in partnership with their fellow citizens in the rest of the Kingdom, a structure within the United Kingdom and in the context of the Kilbrandon Report.
At this stage may I on behalf of my colleagues welcome most warmly the forthright assurance from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), and the declaration that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. It is at long last that we have this firm declaration, and I think it will remove the hopes of the terrorists and the fear of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I regret having to intrude in the hon.
1186
Member's speech, which is being well received, but does he not realise that the Constitution Act, which is accepted by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties, made a clear declaration that Northern Ireland would not be removed from the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority of its people?
Mr. Molyneaux: Certainly the declaration was made, but then various subsequent attempts were also made, sometimes in the very next paragraph, to erode that position, and it was that which depressed and saddened many of us. The declaration was made in the document which preceded the setting up of the Sunningdale structure which was calculated and designed to remove and would have had the effect of removing, Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom had it been permitted to run its course.
Finally, I deal with the matter of our responsibilities as citizens of the United Kingdom. In the kindest possible way I would suggest that no possible good could come of lecturing Ulster people on their duties while they are being denied the privileges of British citizenship. The first of those privileges is being delivered from war and terror and having the right to play a full part in the defence of their own Province. The second privilege is that of feeling that they are fully represented in this Parliament which makes the laws which the people of Northern Ireland as British citizens must obey and which they are willing and glad to obey. Without that vital element all else is meaningless. Above all is the privilege of guaranteed membership of this United Kingdom and the assurance, which we have had from one side of the House and which I hope will be repeated later, that never again will the people be confronted with a Sunningdale-type condominium designed to erode if not to end that British citizenship.
If we the people of Northern Ireland are granted such assurances—and we ask no more and no less than the other citizens of the kingdom—there is no need to fear any further extra-parliamentary activities, and we can be certain that those elected to the Constitutional Convention can be relied upon to succeed where others have failed.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) received a good hearing for his speech which was moderate in tone, though I could not agree with all that he said. I recall having said in a previous debate that it was a pity that hon. Members from the United Ulster Unionist Party did not always receive a warm hearing for their speeches, and the reasons for this were based on things said elsewhere and sometimes the tone adopted here. I am glad to pay tribute to the hon. Member for the way in which he presented his case, even though I disagreed with him on the issue of the guarantee.
Now that this White Paper is before us, the Government have two clear objectives. The first must be to spell out the limits on the Constitutional Convention in terms of what is acceptable to Britain and what this Parliament is likely to accept. That must be said now to avoid confusion later. The second is to set and maintain the conditions in which the Convention can proceed and is likely to proceed along constructive lines. I refer first to the limits within which the Constitutional Convention is bound to have to work. These limits are clearly indicated in paragraph 45, in which certain facts are set out, facts which must be recognised in the Convention and which will be elaborated in further documents that the Government may make available to it.
Clearly, the first of these is power sharing. It is quite clear that neither of the communities in Northern Ireland represented in the Convention can be coerced into accepting the other's view, nor can either be ruled out of any future participation in Government. It has been made as clear as it can ever be made that the Protestant community in Northern Ireland has a guarantee that it will not be dispatched into a united Ireland against its will. I do not see how any British Government of any party can make that position any clearer. In so far as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) went further than that, it was to indicate his personal view and that of his party that they ought to remain and that he would like
1188
them always to remain. That is going further to the extent that it commits him and his hon. and right hon. Friends to a view about what the Protestant community should decide, but the important thing to that community, which is abundantly clear, is that they will not be sent into a united Ireland against their will. That assurance will no doubt have to be repeated many times, but it is clear.
However, for their part the Protestants must accept the right of Catholic participation in any future Government in Northern Ireland, and here I am glad to follow what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said. It is simply no use trotting out as some sort of shibboleth that someone who has aspirations towards the future development of a united Ireland is not a fit person to take part in Government. That cannot be used as a barrier to participation. The guide, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly said, is willingness to operate within the law. The only condition which can be placed on participation in the future Government of Northern Ireland is the same for Protestant and Catholic—willingness to operate within the laws and constitution of Northern Ireland for the time being. Whatever aspirations people may have about the future of the country in which they were born and in which they live is not the test. That must be accepted and recognised.
There is no clearer demonstration on the part of the Catholic community of willingness to work within these laws than the work of the SDLP members in the former Executive. Tributes have been paid to all the groups in this Executive; the SDLP members worked constructively and well for the good of Northern Ireland, of which they are citizens. That fact is a clear testimony to the right of future Catholic participation in Northern Ireland government.
The paragraph which sets out the facts which are to be recognised refers to acceptability to the United Kingdom and out of it has arisen the phrase "The British dimension". It is quite clear that this Parliament is not prepared to accept a return to a Stormont form of government, and whatever happy memories one community may have of that form of government, the memories of the other

1189
community are very dismal indeed, and that is something of a legacy to answer for. There cannot be a return to a Stormont form of government. There must be protection of the rights of the minority community. It must be spelled out clearly that that form of government would not receive acceptance here and that any such government, if it were to be established, would not have the financial underpinning or enjoy the financial benefit on which those who are most keen on such a form of government depend. I am thinking particularly of those communities in Belfast which are dependent for work on the shipyards and which are looking to the British Government for continued confidence and investment in those yards. It must be made clear that the financial involvement of the British Government in Northern Ireland will depend on a system of Government that is acceptable over here in terms of its protection of minority rights.
The third feature in that famous paragraph 45 is the Irish dimension. I have already referred to the aspiration of members of the minority community and the attitude we should take towards it.
It seems to me that the important aspect of the Irish dimension for the North for the time being is that which is of immediate practical value to the North—namely, co-operation with the South on issues of mutual concern. The issue of border security has already been mentioned as one in which initiatives from the South will be welcome. I believe that initiatives from the North could reasonably be taken in a number of matters into which it would be difficult to read any sinister motive of backdoor moves to an immediate united Ireland. I am thinking of co-operation in such matters as agriculture and commerce, where fruitful relationships already exist between departments in Belfast and in Dublin, relationships which could proceed on the basis of considerable common interest and common ground into some institutional form, such as joint committees, committees which can deal with common problems. It would be difficult to read into such arrangements any sinister plans. They can be seen as desirable in the common interests of both North and South.
As long as we are in the EEC—which I suspect will be for all time, despite
1190
the feelings of some Labour Members—the importance of such developments is even clearer. The degree of common interest between North and South within the EEC on agricultural matters, in some ways interests distinct from those of the rest of the United Kingdom, makes this clear.
I said that the other aspect was the need to set and maintain conditions in which the Convention would be enabled to proceed on constructive lines. The first thing which needs to be done in this respect, and which is obviously the target of much of the Government's work, is the allaying of everybody's fears, fears that a united Ireland will somehow be sprung on them, or that a return to Stormont is likely to be sprung on them.
It is almost unnecessary to state the importance of the security situation in creating the atmosphere in which the Convention will proceed, but I think that the question must be raised again, as it will be later tonight, as to how far the internment procedures are helping and how far they are hindering the security situation. I have a little less confidence than the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whose expectations of what will happen at 10 o'clock go a long way. I recall asking the Minister in a Question how many detainees had been released since he first announced the scheme under which he hoped to develop resettlement provisions and sponsorship. None had been released up to the time I asked my Question last week. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's comments later.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): We should clarify this point. I hope to explain the resettlement proposals and how resettlement will work when I wind up the debate, which I presume will be at some time after 9.30 p.m.—I do not think that there is anything special about 10 o'clock—and when the Emergency Provisions Order is debated.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he will recognise that if the ending of internment is to be seen as something really in prospect it will take more than a very limited release of half-a-dozen or a couple of dozen detainees to have the kind of impact one might seek.

1191
We all recognise that the ending of internment over a short time scale would be a severe gamble for any British Government, but it is an option that must be considered at this juncture, in view of the depth of feeling of Catholic and Protestant communities. There is no group with a greater interest in the retention of internment than the Provisional IRA. No group has more cause to welcome its continuance, in that much of its support among the Catholic community owes a great deal to the existence of internment, with the family strains and dissatisfactions it creates.
Mr. Dalyell: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman for his last statement? Mr. Quigley and Mr. Morrell, spokesmen of the provisional IRA in Long Kesh, assured my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and me that there would be no blood bath, that they wanted an end to internment and the start of a dialogue with the new forces in Ulster.
Mr. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is more ready than I to accept at face value what is said by the spokesmen for the Provisional IRA. My feeling, which is shared by many people in Northern Ireland, is that in internment the Provisional IRA has had a weapon in helping bring about the community's support it has enjoyed in some parts of the Province. It may well be that there are those in the Provisional IRA who are genuine in their desire both to end internment and to back its ending by a cessation of violence. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman's optimism.
Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman a perfectly civil question—what was his evidence? It is no answer to be told that I am naïve and simple. If he asserts that the retention of internment suits the Provisional IRA, what evidence has the Liberal spokesman for that?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should look at those communities in which the Provisional IRA enjoys support, and the extent to which internment has been a factor in the attitude of families there, perhaps of families with members and friends interned, and the extent to which that builds up resentment against the
1192
authorities and security forces. I do not wish to insult the hon. Gentleman in any way. He is wrong to suppose that I called him naïve. I said that he was optimistic. and I am not as optimistic as he is about what the attitude of the Provisional IRA would be if internment were ended.
A further aspect of the conditions under which the Convention must proceed concerns the electoral system. I back the intention in the White Paper that the electoral system used for the Convention will be that which was used for the Assembly, and the statement that it must be one capable of reflecting the views of the people of Northern Ireland, which the Westminster system has clearly failed to do. There is a possibility that there will be a Westminster election at about the same time as the Convention elections or immediately before or after them. I do not prejudge the Prime Minister's decision on that, but in any event there is likely to be at a fairly difficult moment.
Whatever happens to the electoral system in the whole of the United Kingdom, about which we have views, the Minister needs to look again at the Westminster electoral system in Northern Ireland. I know that I am asking him to consider what may appear to be a paradoxical course of action, but he is finding it impossible in his own speeches to support the Westminster electoral system and the way in which it works in Northern Ireland and the effects it has there. He may have to ask his right hon. Friend "Why do not we have a full-scale proportional representation experiment in Northern Ireland extending to Westminster elections as well?" Such an experiment should be combined with an increase in Northern Ireland representation here.
It should also be made clear at this stage that one of the conditions for the success of the Convention will be discussions extending far deeper into the community than those who stand as candidates for it, and that before election fever grips the Province and people find themselves taking sides, as they inevitably do at an election, it is desirable to encourage discussions at as many levels of the community as possible. If there are any ways in which the Government can encourage discussions at the level of the community forum within the indivdual town or area of a town on as wide a

1193
scale as possible, that should be done. Whatever financial assistance can be given, should be given. Perhaps Church leaders can take an initiative. If the Government can assist in any way, they should do so.
I echo the feelings of hon. Members who have pointed out that in the meantime we must ensure that Northern Ireland legislation and orders are properly dealt with here. I must ask the Secretary of State not to reject the possibility of a Northern Ireland committee here simply because it seems to be a concession to those who were unwilling to operate the Assembly, where they had opportunities to deal with Northern Ireland legislation much more fully. It is not an argument against such a committee or anything else that it has those antecedents. Nor should the right hon. Gentleman fear that the creation of such a committee would be a precedent for the kind of machinery one might associate with full integration, for example. This is in no sense an argument against a Northern Ireland committee to deal with legislation as a temporary measure, to ensure that there is full treatment of Northern Ireland matters and to avoid the clogging of a legislative timetable which is already experiencing some difficulties. As a temporary measure it would command wide support in the House. We all hope that many of the matters which have been mentioned today and those with which we shall deal later tonight will be temporary measures on the way to a solution of the Northern Ireland problem.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: This is the most placid and good-tempered debate on Northern Ireland that I can remember. That is largely due to the good sense contained in the Secretary of State's speech and in the White Paper that he has produced. Before the last General Election many of the speeches that we heard from the then Opposition benches seemed to suggest that Labour hon. Members were looking forward to a headlong dash into unimpeded minority rule in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the White Paper is more realistic and we can be assured that the voice of the majority will at least be heard. I am also pleased that there is a suggestion that the result of the Constitutional Con
1194
vention will be put to the whole of the electorate of Northern Ireland in a referendum.
Mr. Orme: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to misrepresent matters. When he talks about unimpeded progress to minority rule he will accept that in effect the Assembly and the Executive when elected represented a majority in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Goodhart: I accept that that was the position. I was referring to speeches made by the Minister's hon. Friends at an earlier stage. I do not think that the Minister ever subscribed to the view that was held by some of his hon. Friends.
I am glad that there is a possibility that we shall have a referendum on the result of the Constitutional Convention. Despite all the bombs and all the strikes, I still think that there is a moderate majority in Northern Ireland. Where there is turmoil it is important to demonstrate in as many ways as possible that the constitutional arrangements that have been made have the general support of those who are directly involved. Therefore, I hope that we shall come to a referendum.
I do not think that we can necessarily complain over-much about certain vaguenesses in the White Paper or about gaps in the Secretary of State's speech. Clearly there are no more gaps in this measure than in other measures. It seems that the vaguest reference of all is in paragraph 45(c), which says:
"Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, shares a common land frontier and a special relationship with another country, the Republic of Ireland. Any political arrangements must recognise and provide for this special relationship. There is an Irish dimension."
That could mean anything or very nearly nothing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was absolutely right to say that the question whether there is an Irish dimension depends to a large extent on the Dublin Government. Much depends on whether they are prepared to cooperate on issues that are of importance to the people in the North. If that were so co-operation would grow, but if the Dublin Government were not prepared to co-operate on certain matters such as security and the border, co-operation would wither and diminish.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right to quote paragraph 45(c), but it is right that I should tell him on what it is built. In the Constitution Act 1973 there is understandably no mention of the Irish dimension. That measure refers only to the concept that there may be co-operation. I discovered on going to Northern Ireland that the relationship that was built between the North and the South was left almost entirely to a discussion between the Executive and the South. I was told that Englishmen played little or no part in Sunningdale. I thought that that was good sense and that I could refer to the "Irish dimension" and leave the matter for Irishmen to determine themselves.
Mr. Goodhart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his interesting intervention. I was also interested in the observation of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He mentioned that Britain and the Republic of Ireland are members of the European Economic Community. It often strikes me as odd that those who are sometimes most anxious to see the greatest cooperation between Dublin and Belfast—indeed, a merger between them—are often those who are most anxious to see Britain leave the Community. I remember that the Minister of State was most vehement in his opposition to our entry into the Community. I wonder what will happen to the Irish dimension if the United Kingdom leaves the EEC and if the Republic of Ireland remains a member. What then will happen to the Irish dimension? I wonder whether the Government have any contingency plans in the event of that happening.
The part of the White Paper in which there is least clarity is understandably that which deals with security. It seems that security is the key to constitutional reform. Understandably the majority of people in Northern Ireland will continue to be infuriated if they are asked to accept a moderate constitution and moderate political methods and if at the same time the security forces maintain a low profile. In the course of the past five years we have seen one moderate Northern Ireland leader after another have the ground cut from under his feet because of our inability or unwillingness to press home more vigorously the fight against terrorism.
1196
I hope that even before we get to the stage of elections to the Constitutional Convention we can do certain things in the security sector. Perhaps the highest priority ought to be given to conditions in the Maze Prison. In the course of the past five years some of the most dangerous men in Northern Ireland have spent a substantial portion of their time in that prison. It seems a wholly regrettable state of affairs that so often a man emerges from that prison as a greater danger to society as a whole than he was when he went in.
I would give highest priority also to recruiting more staff so that we can enforce the rule of law within our prisons and get on with the vital task of the rehabilitation of those who are there. We must also do more about the security of the border. I am sure that we cannot and should not seek to seal the border. It would be an impossibility. But we can and ought to cut down on a number of crossing points and we ought to do more to control those crossing points. At the same time we are now reaching the stage when we must soon consider the possibility of introducing identity documents, not just into Northern Ireland but into the whole of the United Kingdom.
Clearly documentation or control of the border will not do much good unless we have enough people in the Northern, Ireland security services. I was glad to hear the Minister of State say at Question Time the other day that he had held discussions with the Catholic community on the all-important issue of trying to get more Catholic recruits into the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But suppose, once again, this plea fails and the recruits do not come forward. How are we to provide adequate policing for the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland where we all know there is a substantial amount of intimidation on the part of the IRA?
I see that Dublin has announced the formation of a Home Guard for some towns and villages. I made many speeches during the passage of the Bill setting up the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am not sure that we have yet got the recruiting procedure for the UDR right or that we have got quite right the rôle in which we use the Regiment. I wonder whether, if recruitment does not improve

1197
in the months ahead, we might not consider some new form of reserve with local service liabilities. I should like to hear more about the Government's thinking on how they would build up the security forces.
It must be right that the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland should be given the means and encouragement to provide their own defence against terrorists. Whatever happens on the security side I am sure that we shall have many more debates on Northern Ireland in this House. I hope that at some time in the future the people of Northern Ireland will have adequate numerical representation here and that we shall not have over-large constituencies in Northern Ireland. This is the place in which the constitutional future of the people of Northern Ireland will be decided. The people of Northern Ireland ought to have their full voice here.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: I sometimes feel that what Ireland suffers from is a surfeit of oratory. If only we could have a sabbatical, if only all the hard men who have become national figures on the "box" over the past five years could find refuge in mid-western universities for six months, how much better the situation would be. My only contribution to this plea for comparative silence will be to make a very brief speech.
I welcome the White Paper because it injects reality into a problem which has obstinately refused to yield to the politics of reason. Mr. Adlai Stevenson once said that the politics of reason were not enough. I think that followed his defeat in the 1956 election. Since when has politics ever been a rational activity? Sunningdale is dead and I, for one, refuse to wear mourning. The cold meats I shall leave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Sunning-dale Agreement went too far, too fast. It was an exercise in railroading. It gave far too much to the viewpoint of the Republican, both in the North and in the South of Ireland.
The attempt to institutionalise the Irish dimension led inevitably and directly to the Ulster workers' strike. The White Paper is an attempt to persuade those who have recently exercised power to
1198
show responsibility, an attempt to persuade the Ulster Workers' Council in particular—where the power resides—that it is its turn to exercise a degree of responsibility. If this is so, then it looks as if at last the problem is being returned to Ireland. The genius of the Lloyd George settlement after the First World War was that if the Irish were sufficiently irrational to practise murder in the pursuit of their political ideals, they should have the responsibility for it.
At least this is a gesture in that direction. The White Paper is wise, in that it makes only some recognition of the Irish dimension but at the same time places a lot of emphasis on the United Kingdom dimension. The White Paper makes all the proper noises about power sharing, but that is likely to come about only as the result of a concession by the majority community. It was always out of the question to force upon the majority a concept that ran against the reason for the existence of a Northern Ireland state.
I suggest that Her Majesty's Government ought to hold elections for the Constitutional Convention sooner rather than later—November rather than February of next year. I suspect that the argument for an election in November is strengthened by the imminent likelihood of an election for the Westminster Parliament in October this year. Her Majesty's Government ought to do the decent thing and, once a settlement is achieved, ought, as a quid pro quo, to see that the Irish have representation in this House in accordance with their numbers. My whole philosophy at the moment is "fewer Scots and more Irish". [Interruption.] I have the feeling that I am carrying a sizeable minority with me. We in the Conservative Party ought seriously to consider the two suggestions I have made to the Government—elections sooner rather than later, and the pledge to increase Ulster representation. I have no need to remind my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the Conservative Party stands in need of every friend it can get.
The path towards an eventual settlement has been eased by the lesson which the Ulster workers have administered to Republicans north and south of the border. A Constitutional Convention ought to incline both sides towards moderation. It should make the Loyalists

1199
more likely to concede something on the sharing of power as the price for the United Kingdom economic subsidy, and might even incline Catholics in the Convention to moderate their demands for a united Ireland if only because of the fear of the consequence for them were Northern Ireland ever to achieve independence.
In conclusion, past policies have failed because they have foundered upon an unresolved conflict of allegiance. The proposals of the White Paper may yet succeed. Indeed, any agreement reached by the Convention will be very gratefully received by this House. What we are not certain of is how many people within the Convention itself have to agree before "agreement" is achieved. Were this last attempt at a constitutional convention to fail, then at last we would reach those two final "Stations of the Cross" of the Irish problem—the choice between independence and integration.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had not intended to speak at any length on this White Paper because there is not a lot in it to discuss. If my remarks are a little too lengthy it will be because of the intervention that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I resent bitterly—I am certain that this may be felt, to some extent, by some of my opponents in Northern Ireland—the patronising attitude he adopted in speaking of Irish affairs.
Mr. Julian Critchley: That is not true.
Mr. Fitt: He told us how irrational the Irish are—
Mr. Critchley: And they are.
Mr. Fitt:—and said that they are unable to cope with their own problems. At the weekend at Oxford, when the noble Lord, Lord Longford was introducing the meeting of the British-Irish Society, he showed us a number of busts in the hall and told us they were busts of eminent Englishmen, all of whom had tried in some way to solve the Irish problem. Since I fell out of the cradle I have heard about all the Englishmen who have tried to solve the Irish problem. I have yet to hear about the bunch who started it. There will be many in Northern Ireland who will resent the hon.
1200
Member's patronising attitude. He spoke of law and order—
Mr. Critchley: I did not mention it.
Mr. Fitt: Well, the hon. Member mentioned the security forces and said that they should have the support of the whole community. We have heard that time and again from Conservative speakers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that had it not been for the downfall of the Executive there would now be in Northern Ireland an institution which would enable the two communities, Protestant and Catholic, to identify with a new police authority. The downfall of the Executive brought the downfall of the setting up of that authority.
Mr. John Carson Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North) rose—
Mr. Fitt: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member because I have found repeatedly that when I am speaking he intervenes. I have yet to hear him make a maiden speech in this House. If he wishes to make any contribution to this debate he can make it.
Captain Orr: The fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was absent during my hon. Friend's excellent and telling maiden speech is no excuse for not giving way to him.
Mr. Fitt: I regret not having been here to hear that, and I am most anxious to hear the hon. Member make another contribution. In relation to the police authority, the Catholic community, through its elected representatives, was trying desperately to set up an institution which would allow the minority community to identify with the police service in Northern Ireland and so create confidence and trust in that police service, so that the Army could be taken away from the streets of Derry and the more sensitive areas of the city of Belfast.
Mr. Carson: I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whether he can say that the Executive in Northern Ireland, of which he was a member, could have been assured that every part of Northern Ireland and the streets of Belfast would have been policed by that police authority? Was it not rejected by the Provisional IRA, so that certain parts of Belfast would never have accepted it?

1201
Will the hon. Member give the House an assurance that all Northern Ireland and every street in Belfast would have been policed by that force?
Mr. Fitt: I have never claimed the right to speak on behalf of the Provisional IRA. I have at all times condemned it for the activities in which it is and has been engaged throughout this whole confrontation. I am saying that the elected representatives of the minority—the Provisional IRA did not have a single vote cast for it at the ballot box—were in full agreement with the other members of the Executive. We had agreed to enter into discussions with the Irish Government, in the hope that they would be able to bring about a police authority, and through that authority a police force which would have been acceptable to everyone in Northern Ireland. I am certain that had the Executive lasted another two or three weeks that police authority would have been in existence.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that he is going to give us some information tonight on the release of internees. I repeat what I have said on many occasions before: internment is, has been and will continue to be one of the most serious and divisive issues in Northern Ireland until it is brought to a complete end. In the negotiations which took place at Sunningdale the British Government said that they would bring about further releases if the security position allowed them to do so. In the discussions we had with the then Conservative Government, we said that not only must releases be dictated by the security situation but that there must also be political interests involved—and so the Conservative Government, to their credit, immediately after Sunningdale released 60 or 65 internees. I protested at that time, and most of my colleagues supported me vehemently. We thought that the number was far too small. Since then, no releases have been made by the Conservative Government up to 28th February or by the succeeding Labour Government who were then elected.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The releases were made by the commissioners.
Mr. Fitt: The releases were certainly made by the commissioners and not by the Secretary of State himself, but I can only
1202
tell my right hon. Friend, from the same side of the House, that if he thinks his announcement tonight that seven people are to be released will go any way towards lessening the tension in Northern Ireland he has another think coming. Seven is a derisory figure and it will certainly not go any way towards pleasing anyone who is in any way involved in the internment problem—and that goes for both communities. I do not yet know the religion of the seven who are to be released—whether they are Loyalists or on the Republican side—but if the whole seven were either Loyalists or on the Republican side the figure would still be derisory. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves, because it does not even begin to attack the very burning issues that are raised by internment.
Mr. Orme: I assure my hon. Friend that the releases are representative of both communities, and they are the beginning. My right hon. Friend has said that there will be more. It will not be seven and no more. My right hon. Friend has in mind a number who will be released progessively over the coming weeks.
Mr. Fitt: I repeat that the derisory number of seven will not be acceptable to anyone who is involved with the problem of internment. I have been told by my right hon. Friend that there may be another seven, but will they be released tomorrow, next week, or next year? Will the Government ask for a further extension of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for six months, and at the end of that period will they ask for a further extension?
When the 65 internees were released at Christmas, we thought that that was the beginning, and that there would be more releases in January, February and March. But there were no further releases, except for the internees who were released by the commissioners. I am not telling my right hon. Friends something of which they are not completely aware. Day in and day out representations are made to them by representatives of both communities about the problems of internment. I am not telling my right hon. Friends anything they do not know, although there may be other hon. Members who are not completely aware of the divisive nature of internment.

1203
I recognise that if one wants to remain friends with one's colleagues there are times when one is expected not to say certain things. On the other hand, as an elected public representative it is my bounden duty to speak on behalf of my constituents and of what affects them in their everyday life. I know that I shall have no support for what I say from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but I have had forceful representations made to me that certain members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are no credit to that force. I am not condemning the force out of hand and saying that every member of it is a miscreant, but my right hon. Friends have received deputation after deputation concerning the activities of certain members of the UDR.
It may be that certain members of the UDR do not like members of the SDLP, members of the minority community or former members of the B Specials but, whatever the reason, time and again representations are made to me from people living in the rural areas—not in Belfast—particularly in areas west of the Bann.
Captain Orr: The UDR is one of the most vital and important security services. The hon. Gentleman is making general allegations, and he says that he has taken these allegations to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should be specific. What is he alleging? Who are the persons against whom the allegations are made? One cannot allow those allegations to stand in so vague a manner on the record.
Mr. Fitt: I was not a member of the deputation which went to see the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend, but many of my colleagues were. They are the people who live west of the Bann who are affected.
Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman is advancing this argument before the House of Commons he must know what were the allegations and he must know the names of the people against whom allegations were made.
Mr. Fitt: One allegation, which may not seem to be very serious, was about the harassment that is meted out by
1204
members of the UDR who are concerned with traffic security. They appear to allow one person or 10 persons to go by but to keep a particular person of a different political or religious persuasion for hours at the block. That has happened time and again.
Mr. Molyneaux: If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I have been stopped by the Army and by the UDR patrols at road blocks. On several occations I have been asked to remove my jacket and place my arms on top of the car while I was frisked. During that time up to a dozen cars were waved through. This is not an exclusively SDLP matter.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: A delegation has visited my right hon. Friend and made allegations about the UDR similar to those which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and which I suppose can loosely be called allegations of harassment. Several names have been mentioned, because everyone seems to know everyone else in Northern Ireland. These allegations are being investigated because names have been given to us.
I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear that although the allegations are important they do not involve deaths. My hon. Friend's remarks may be taken out of context unless we put that right.
Mr. Fitt: I thought that I was being very fair. I did not lay great stress on this matter. I said that only a few members of the UDR may be affected. I did not condemn the whole force for being engaged in this activity.
It is necessary to get the confidence and trust of the community in the security forces. If certain people are acting in a way which is likely to reduce that trust and confidence, it is right that that should be mentioned in the House and elsewhere, so that such activity can be brought to an end. I want the security forces throughout Ireland—the Army and the police—to receive the full confidence and support of the whole community. No one can say that I have at any time supported those who are engaged in the commission of violence.
Apart from one paragraph the White Paper is a history lesson. It may be a lesson for people who live in other parts

1205
of the United Kingdom, but it is a lesson that we in Northern Ireland do not have to be taught. We have experienced the bombs and the killings and we have attended the funerals. The sentiments which are expressed in the White Paper are vague in many aspects. Paragraph 45(a) contains the following words:
"There must be some form of power-sharing and partnership."
What exactly does that mean? I know what I regard as power sharing and what I would be prepared to accept as power sharing. I and members of my political party would not be prepared to take up a minor position, such as that of chairman of a committee, and regard it as power sharing. It has been conceded, even by right-wing Conservatives when in Government, that the Ministers who were appointed to deal with commerce, housing, health and social services proved that they were capable of administering those services on behalf of the whole community in Northern Ireland. They would not be prepared to accept minor positions.
I come now to the Irish dimension. It has been said that one cannot legislate for a man's opinion or a man's conscience. There are thousands of people who believe that in some way, some day, sooner rather than later, Ireland will be united by the consent of all the people—that no coercion will be necessary and that no violence will ever achieve that end. It is difficult to gauge accurately the real opinion or conscience of an individual and, therefore, no one can tell exactly how many people hold that opinion. But there are many who believe that people who live north and south of the border will come together and begin to govern their own country.
One cannot penalise people for having that legitimate ideal. I have that ideal. I hope that sooner or later, by consent and not by violence, I shall see Ireland united into a 32-county republic. I have never believed that to love Ireland one has to hate England. The islands of Northern Ireland and Great Britain are so situated geographically that the two countries must co-operate with each other, particularly in today's fast-changing world. The two peoples must live in peace, amity, concord.
1206
This must be understood: the vast majority of the people in Ireland bear no animosity towards the people of Great Britain. For example, when a football team from Great Britain is engaged in an international competition the Irish people suffer the same disappointment as those in the United Kingdom if that team is beaten.
The term "Republican" can be very offensive to the Unionist representatives from Northern Ireland. Others do not find it offensive. They wait to see the formation of a united Ireland one day, brought about by consent and not by coercion.
We are told by the leader of the official Unionist Party that he will not serve in government or agree to share power with Republicans, meaning the Roman Catholics.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Will the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) help us by saying when the leader of the Unionist Party made that statement?
Mr. Fitt: On numerous occasions he has said that he is not prepared to share power with the SDLP because they are Republicans, and not because they are Roman Catholics. He said he would be able to share power with Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who were loyal to the Constitution. That means loyal to his interpretation of the Constitution.
The SDLP members of the last Executive were loyal to the Constitution Act 1973 as it exists today in Northern Ireland. Can any further loyalty be demanded of anyone in Northern Ireland?
The interpretation of the pronouncements of the leaders of the official Unionist Party is that they are not prepared to share power even in the long term. The path is now set for a collision between those in Northern Ireland who maintain that attitude and the present United Kingdom Government or, after the next election, perhaps the Conservatives. That collision course will still be there.
The Government and the Opposition insist that there must be power sharing in Northern Ireland, that there must be partnership in government, that there must

1207
be an Irish dimension. We share the views expounded in Northern Ireland that that is not possible. This is leading to a headlong political confrontation between the political parties in Britain and those who are proving to be so intransigent in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP will in the future try to bring about community consensus politics in Northern Ireland. We are dedicated to taking every political step we can to bring the communities together in Northern Ireland. We cannot be expected to sell out our every ideal and aspiration in an attempt to bring about this co-operation.
By spelling out the financial relationships which exist between Great Britain and Northern Ireland the British Government can point out to the majority in Northern Ireland, particularly through Part 5 of the White Paper, the very real effects of the maintenance of their present attitude of total confrontation with the British Government.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I do not intend to make any comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) except to deplore the smear he made on the Ulster Defence Regiment. We are conscious of the number of members of that gallant force who have sacrificed their lives for the community.
I accept what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said when he welcomed the moderate way in which this debate has progressed. That is a good sign. He repeated what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said—that Members of this House representing Great Britain constituencies ought to approach discussions on Northern. Ireland with a sense of humility. That is why I deplored the Prime Minister's television speech dealing with the Ulster strike, which, to say the least, did not pour oil on troubled waters.
The Prime Minister has a deep and abiding hatred of the Ulster majority. Because of that, he is blind to certain aspects of the Ulster problem. His dislike of the Ulster majority is shared by some other members of the Labour Party. I ask the Labour Party to bear in mind
1208
that the Ulster people have now endured five years of a vicious nightmare.
Mr. John Mendelson: At a time when everybody is appealing to the various forces directly involved to adopt a responsible attitude the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the nonsensical remark concerning the alleged abiding hatred of the Prime Minister for the majority in Ulster. What conceivable prejudice could lead him to believe that what is there in the background, in the make-up or in the general attitudes, philosophical and religious, of the Prime Minister could lead to that abiding hatred? It is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
Mr. Kilfedder: I do not withdraw the remark. Anyone who heard the Prime Minister broadcasting on the strike, even without listening to his other speeches made in this House and outside, will realise that he dislikes the Ulster majority.
Dealing with what the Liberal spokesman—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—said about the need to provide a committee upstairs to discuss legislation before draft orders were put before the House, I raised this matter last week. I hope the Secretary of State will pay attention to that request. We need an opportunity to debate and suggest amendments before draft orders are laid before the House. It is grossly unfair—this matter is referred to in the White Paper—to a hard-working community, and the height of political impertinence, to imply criticism of the Ulster community because revenue falls short of expenditure.
The whole of the United Kingdom is subsidised by the International Monetary Fund. If the economic position becomes any worse we shall be looking across the channel to the Common Market to get the nation out of its financial difficulties. That is the plight the whole country is in. The White Paper does a simple arithmetical exercise. It adds up the revenue arising from taxation levied in Northern Ireland, it totals the expenditure and subtracts one from the other. It then comes to the conclusion that the difference is the subsidy paid by London for the upkeep of Northern Ireland. No account is taken of the fact that Ulster has the highest gross domestic output of all the

1209
regions in the United Kingdom. No account is taken of the fact that the output per acre of Ulster farms is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The White Paper completely ignores the contribution that industry and agriculture make to the total wealth of the entire country. Northern Ireland industry makes a bigger contribution per worker, to Great Britain's exports than workers in Great Britain itself. We have a high output at a cheap rate—far too cheap a rate—from Ulster's 35,000 small farms, which helps to keep down the cost of food for the English housewife. All this should be borne in mind when people castigate Northern Ireland.
The people of Ulster have performed an economic miracle in the face of incredible destruction. While transforming the country economically, they have had to contend with a vicious urban guerrilla campaign, aimed at destroying the whole community. The violent upheaval has not been confined to Northern Ireland; it is part of a pattern that we have witnessed throughout the western democratic world. I should not like to think that any other part of the United Kingdom would have to endure what the people of Belfast and the towns and villages of Ulster have had to suffer. Democracy and freedom will not be saved except by resolute action against terrorists.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to detention, and spoke of only 65 internees being released before Christmas. Ten of those 65 have been detained again for very good reasons. We cannot just get rid of detention; it is essential. The Army has told me in all my conversations with it that it cannot operate in Northern Ireland if internment is taken away. The abolition of internment would mean that detainees would be able to go out and train others or engage in terrorist activities themselves. Although as I have always said, I intensely dislike internment, it is necessary in the circumstances. We should consider how to improve the circumstances of those in the Maze Prison. That would help the situation.
The White Paper introduces a new dimension by insisting on the right of the Ulster people to help to devise their own constitution. This is a unique development in the United Kingdom and should
1210
attract the attention of the Scottish people. No doubt they will be looking for a constitutional convention in due course. Parliament is saying to the people, "We have failed; now you must try." I welcome the view in the White Paper that the people must participate in the making of their own constitution.
However, a convention of 78 members is not likely to be sufficiently representative of opinion. A constitution which would weld opposing communities together will not be achieved just through 78 members, and certainly will not be achieved overnight. If the Government are genuine and sincere in their desire for a broad spectrum of opinion to be represented in the convention—as I accept they are—at least 150 representatives will be needed. I notice the Minister shaking his head in disagreement with me, but the more people we have at that convention the better it will be for Northern Ireland in the long run.
If the concept in the White Paper is not to turn sour or become stale, the elections will have to be held quickly. Delay plays into the hands of the terrorists. The gunmen want no constitution of any sort. They do not want the country to succeed, social conditions to be improved, or a real political dialogue to begin.
The longer the Government delay elections to a convention the more the initiative will pass to the terrorists and the greater the permanent damage to civilised standards of behaviour. There is always the danger that the longer the delay the more politicians of every party will adopt a stance from which they will not easily be able to depart.
Mr. Orme: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's views, but is he aware that the Government are under extreme pressure from Protestant organisations and leading representatives of that community to delay elections for a considerable time? When I conclude the debate I shall give the names of people who have approached us on this matter.
Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the Minister says, and look forward to his speech. However, I believe that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland want elections, and want them now. But this is a difference of opinion: it is a question of the number of people the

1211
Minister has spoken to, and the weight they carry.
How practical would it be to hold a referendum on the findings of the Convention? By its very nature, a constitution is complex. What questions would be put in the referendum? What would people be asked to decide on? Who would advise on the questions? Would it be the members of the Convention, the Secretary of State, or Parliament? I hope that the Minister will deal with these questions.
Of course, a referendum will mean further delay and will provide additional opportunity for the men of violence to plague the community. It will prolong the uncertainty, with no noticeable gain except for those who wish to see the continuation of disruption and who gain from chaos. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. Although I was against the Common Market, I voted against the holding of a referendum because that is not the way to settle such matters. There is no convincing argument in support of a referendum in the White Paper.
If the Government do not greatly increase the number of members in the Convention, what would be the purpose of dismissing the Convention and holding further elections to a Northern Ireland Assembly? If the number is restricted to 78, would there not be sense in the constitution-makers having to work the constitution which they had produced? The arrangements and agreements and the respect which would have grown up during the discussions would help to ease the path of the constitution-makers in their new rôle as legislators.
It will not be easy. We all realise the problems that lie ahead. I certainly welcome the proposal to allow Ulster men and women the major rôle in devising their own system of government in the United Kingdom. But the fundamental commitment of the majority in Ulster is to British citizenship and the maintenance of the Union. Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster can live together as citizens of the United Kingdom. Idle talk of an independent Ulster is unrealistic and harmful to the true interests of the Ulster people. Naturally, it worries Roman Catholic members of the community, and that disturbs me. As
1212
an Irishman who is proud of his British nationality and who has no intention of rejecting that nationality, I reject utterly the notion of an independent Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made a notable contribution to the debate. I refer particularly to his clear statement that the Conservative Party wants Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Our people in Northern Ireland will take note of his remarks.
I shall not delay the House any longer, since I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I close by saying that we should all make a fresh start, without recrimination. Let us say that here is an opportunity to see whether we can devise some system which will be acceptable to the majority and to the minority and will make Northern Ireland both peaceful and prosperous. Also, let the Irish Republic realise that its best contribution to a settlement in Northern Ireland is by dealing with the terrorists who seek sanctuary in the Republic. Let them shut down the agencies in the Republic which operate as recruiting centres for the terrorists and which collect money for the evil purposes of those terrorists.
Security is essential to peace in Northern Ireland. The urban guerrillas and anarchists are to meet in Belfast and Dublin. If they can meet in that way—I hope that they are not allowed to meet in Belfast—Her Majesty's Government should also be able to compare notes with other countries which suffer from terrorist activity and see how best to resolve the problem and to deal effectively with the terrorists, so that they can be destroyed.
I welcome the White Paper, with its proposal for a constitutional convention, and hope that it will produce a constitution that is acceptable to the House.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Nick Budgen: I welcome the White Paper because it is based on two sound and enduring principles—first, the principle of a power-sharing Executive and, secondly the belief that any sort of arrangement must be worked out by the people of Ulster themselves.

1213
I believe that it was wise to concentrate on those two principles and to forget or discard many of the principles which, unhappily, were added to the Sunningdale concept. The concept of power sharing is the one concept that has survived from Sunningdale. It was working in the Executive, and I wholeheartedly agree with the last two sentences of paragraph 26 of the White Paper, which say:
"Yet, if the Executive failed, the men who served in it did not fail. They disproved for ever the idea that it is not possible for Protestant and Roman Catholic to work together for the good of Northern Ireland and its people."
I believe that the concept of power sharing is acceptable ultimately to the Protestants. They may not like the concept at present, but since other concepts have been shorn from the Sunning-dale proposals it may well be that they will ultimately accept the idea of power sharing. I believe that for the Roman Catholics of Ulster the concept of power sharing is the minimum condition for their consent and co-operation. The people of the remainder of the United Kingdom demand power sharing as the minimum condition of fairness for the minority of the people of Ulster. It may be that power sharing is the price the Unionists will have to pay if they wish to remain in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the White Paper because it proposes that future constitutional arrangements should be worked out by the people of Ulster with as little interference as possible from the people in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Statesman after statesman has gone out from England to Northern Ireland believing that he or she can solve the problems of Ireland. In recent years we have seen three of the most notable of our English politicians go out from this Chamber to Northern Ireland. I leave aside those who are currently engaged in this problem. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) brought courage, integrity and the bluff common sense of the English and Welsh bobby, and he failed. He was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who brought to bear a Rolls-Royce mind—lucid, far-seeing and objective—and he failed. Then came my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White
1214
law). He brought to the situation the jovial charm and courage of the patrician paternalist. At one stage we thought that he had succeeded, but he, too, failed.
Each of these men brought great and diverse talents to these intractable prolems, but we must recognise that neither the English nor the Welsh understand the gut reactions of the people of Ulster. More important, there is a practical point to be made. This may well be the last chance for the people of Ulster to work out their own solution. They must never be put in a position in which they can say at a later stage, "We were interfered with; it is somebody else's fault because we have not worked out a solution." This must be their responsibility, and they must not be in a position to blame any other person or any other nation if they fail to work out their own solution.
Many of my colleagues on the Opposition benches would argue that the concept of power sharing may not work out. They may be right. I believe, however, that one more wholehearted attempt to work out a power sharing Executive must be made—and it must be made by the people of Ulster. But the people of Ulster must realise the alternatives if they cannot work out some sort of arrangement among themselves. I believe that the alternatives are too horrifying to contemplate with any honesty. There are only two logical alternatives—integration, or independence. Attached to both alternatives are horrifying disadvantages.
When we examine the proposals for integration, we discover that the arguments are morally right. I believe that it would be morally wrong lightly to wash our hands of what is essentially a British problem and a British obligation. Nor do I believe that we in this country should lightly forget the defence advantages to us of the Ulster connection, and the unique position which Ulster holds in relation to our own part of the United Kingdom. But, most of all, I believe that we should consider carefully the solution of integration, because we owe a deep obligation to the silent, moderate, unsung men of Ulster who have turned to us in the last five years in the firm belief that we shall help them achieve a solution which is at once honourable and decent. But we must face the fact that if we try the solution of integration

1215
there are substantial disadvantages—and those disadvantages should be known to the Ulster people. Many of my hon. Friends who are present in the House at the moment have deep reservations on the question whether they want integration.
There are many on the Protestant side of the divide in Ulster who are uncertain whether they want any further integration with the United Kingdom. It must be realised that those who want a continuance of the Protestant ascendancy are unlikely to get it if they have any closer integration with this country—and if the Catholics have integration with this country it must be admitted that that would bid a final farewell to their hopes of achieving a united Ireland by peaceful and democratic means of persuasion.
There is no certainty that integration will bring an end to violence. It is certain, however, that if that violence continues it will not be directed merely towards Belfast and Londonderry; it will be logically directed to those who hold the power over Ulster. It will be directed towards Westminster, towards Birmingham, and even towards Wolverhampton. Such attacks upon the English people may occur at a time when England is at last preoccupied with the menace of inflation, when we have the worst recession in living memory, and high unemployment, and when the English people are unhappily inward-looking and not too concerned with what is happening in Ulster.
It is my fear that if we are ultimately forced to choose the alternative of trying to achieve integration between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the time may come when the unhappy people of England and Scotland, preoccupied with their own internal problems, will say that they are unprepared to continue the debilitating commitment to Ulster. I would not want to see the English or Scottish people take up that position. It would be a profoundly humiliating position, but the people of Ulster ought to know that there is a possibility of that arising.
The second alternative to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) points to is that of independence. The possibilities there are even more horrifying. Independence
1216
could occur only after the English and Scottish troops have been withdrawn, and one thing is certain—that that would be followed by a blood bath. There would then be an attempt by the Protestants to impose a permanent Protestant ascendency, and no one can doubt that that would provoke a severe reaction from the strong minority of those who wish to achieve a united Ireland, whether by violence or by democratic means.
There is a possibility—which is by no means remote and which was, I am sure, in the minds of the politicians of the Republic in their debate of 26th June—that if we pulled out of Northern Ireland and went for independence there would be a war in the whole of Ireland, in which the Republic would be ultimately involved.
There is the further deep constitutional point that if we were to give independence to Northern Ireland it would be a most unfortunate precedent and would be harmful to the whole concept of the integrity of the United Kingdom and to our national standing in the councils of the world. It would be seen almost as a humiliating display of a lack of resolve, as, for instance, occurred when the Belgians left the Congo.
Most of all, we ought to bear in mind that pulling out—certainly pulling out precipitously—could have a most harmful effect on the Army. The Army would wonder what it had done for so many years; what purpose there had been in so much loss of life, and in the misery which it had had to endure in Ulster. We should also bear in mind that one of the saddest things that might come about is that if, at the time it was ordered out of Ulster, the Army happened to be particularly disenchanted with the politicians, and if, as many of us believe, over the next few years we see our democratic institutions seriously undermined by inflation and the failure of the politicians to tell the people the truth, the exit of the Army from Ulster might be the beginning both of the rule of the colonels and of disenchantment between the Army and the politicians.
Mr. Mendelson: Nonsense.
Mr. Budgen: I hope that it is nonsense. We have always believed that what happened in the Weimar Republic could never happen here. We have always

1217
believed that we could not have a 25 per cent. inflation rate. I hope that all these things are purely hypothetical. All I am saying is that I hope that the very unpleasant alternatives of either independence or integration never come about, and I hope with my whole heart, as I am sure all the people of England do, that the people of Ulster will be able to sit down and work out their own solution. All that we in England can ask is that they should know the alternatives, and that they should sit down with a genuine attempt to work out a solution.
For the time being we should ask them one thing: if we are to begin to phase out internment in any way we should invite them to respect the law, particularly in cases where they know of acts of violence. Let us be assured that if internment is phased out and people whom the Army know to be murderers, but whom cannot be proved to be murderers, are seen again in the streets of Belfast and Derry, it will be deeply offensive to the Army. There would be pressures towards increasing internment and detention, but we all want to see internment phased out. It is a deeply offensive system to anyone with any concept of the freedom of the individual and of justice under the law. But if the people of Northern Ireland do not support the law, I ask, rhetorically, what other alternatve is there? Let them first of all support the law, and let them give the Convention their wholehearted support.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I realise that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is well-meaning in wishing to encourage those who will be elected to the Constitutional Convention, should it work. There will be general agreement that that is a good purpose. But the hon. Gentleman must avoid painting an apocalyptic picture, based on no evidence, in order to produce this desirable encouragement of the future members of the Convention. There is no prospect of unemployment being higher than ever before. If the hon. Gentleman remembers his economic history, he will recall that we reached the unfortunate unemployment figure of 3 million in 1932 and 1933. Moreover, Ministers have learnt their Keynes since then in other countries and in this coun
1218
try, and there are encouraging signs that the American economy is strong and that the changeover from production for the war in Indo-China to peaceful production is going on apace, as any recent visitor to the United States will realise.
With regard to difficulties facing us, I am confident that members of the Government are preparing essential measures which will be introduced to the House if there is a danger of more unemployment. Keynes has not lived in vain, and it is slightly ironic that a lifelong Socialist such as myself should have to reassure the Opposition that the economic system under which we live is not at death's door. None the less, I give that reassurance, and I give it especially to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Turning to the main purpose of the debate, there is one other reason why we should consider these matters rather calmly and not make exaggerated appeals about "last chances". Anyone who has followed the history of Northern Ireland knows that that is futile. It is the task of the Government, of Parliament and of the people who are elected now and who will be elected in the future in Northern Ireland to go on working steadily at the job in hand without any talk of last chances, of final failures, or of anything of the kind. It is the task of the Government to go on doing their work, facing the difficulties which arise, knowing that new difficulties will arise, and building upon what achievements we can score as we go along.
One reason why the present administration of this country and the one immediately preceding it will have a good place in history, despite their failure so far to make lasting permanent improvements visible in Northern Ireland, is that the spirit in which they have approached the problem is that of the steady working man who wants to do a practical job. For that, they deserve the support of this House.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), in whose speech I found a number of features with which I agreed, over his denunciation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Hon. Members know that I do not normally act as the Prime Minister's air raid shelter. But it is extremely unhelpful politically in the present situation for such

1219
nonsensical denunciations to reach HANSARD and perhaps to be reproduced in the Press in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as inevitably the speeches in this debate will be reproduced.
There is nothing in the evidence—in the make-up, in the past attitude or in the present attitude of the Prime Minister—that justifies remotely any accusation that he is full of hatred of the majority in Ulster. We have only to recall that it was the present Prime Minister who co-operated most closely with successive Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland in the past—not only Mr. Faulkner but the one preceding him, Mr. Chichester-Clark, who is now a Member of the other place. No one worked more closely with the Prime Ministers of the majority in Ulster than the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. They have worked together, and they have not succeeded, but surely that does not show evidence of hatred of the majority in Ulster.
Moreover, it is not a representative attitude that the hon. Member for Down, North has introduced into this House today. Anyone who has visited the Province recently and talked to many people representing the majority in Ulster will have found that they do not have that in mind at all. They are critical of a speech which the Prime Minister made. In that, we are all in the same class. Who has not at some time been critical of a speech made by the Prime Minister? I plead guilty straight away, and I am sure that I shall do so again in the future. But that does not mean that my right hon. Friend is imbued with hatred.
It is recognised on all sides in the Province that what is becoming clear in the present situation is that this Government, like their predecessors, are making an honest attempt to encourage the people of Northern Ireland themselves to find a solution. That seems to be the present position, and it is one that we can all support. We only weaken our support for this objective if we exaggerate the attitude of people, Governments or policies.
I sought permission to intervene in this debate because I wished to draw attention to two main matters. The first of them concerns the period between now and the elections for a Constitutional
1220
Convention. I did not expect it in advance of going to Ulster recently, but I found that people on all sides of the political spectrum were not urging the Government to hold the elections at the earliest possible date. I know that this is controversial, but there are a number of people among the majority, some of them holding fairly extreme views on other matters—and if I mentioned their names hon. Members would immediately recognise the force of what I say—who have told me that a time for reflection is needed, that time is needed for recruitment, that time is needed for those who might want to put forward candidates rather than having the assumption made that they will necessarily put forward those already sitting in the House of Commons representing them. They want time for reflection and recruitment. Therefore, a certain amount of delay will not do any harm. Indeed, it may do some good.
On the minority side, I have also found that people are interested in an opportunity to work out policies and ideas. But I think that it is far more important in this context that it is members of the majority who are in favour of delay than those among these other groupings. We are talking about limited delay. We are not talking about years. We are also talking about an attitude, which I found firmly expressed, of not wishing to hurry the Government into having these elections within the next few months.
The second matter which I wish to raise concerns internment. Here again, I was surprised to find among a considerable number of people, including senior police officers, a degree of scepticism about the usefulness of internment. Again I did not expect that. The view is held more and more widely in the Province that the way in which people live together for long periods of internment breeds the kind of atmosphere which is dangerous and unhealthy for the public life of Northern Ireland and for the purposes of the community at large. Therefore, more and more people are in favour of ending the policy of internment.
This is a new fact. It is a fact which is all the more interesting because it is a view backed by people in highly responsible positions who have no political axe to grind. This kind of view is bound to make an impact upon my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government.

1221
That brings me to the next matter to which I want to refer. I chide the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in a friendly way for taking it upon himself to interpret the view of the Army in the way that he tried to do. There is a great deal of talk in this country at present about relations between military leaders and political leaders for which there can be no real evidence as regards our troops in Northern Ireland.
I do not claim to be in touch with all those who hold command in the British Army. My own position in the Army during the war was far too lowly to have made the contacts necessary for me to be able to claim to be in touch with those who are now general officers commanding in various parts of the United Kingdom. But on my recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met practically all the commanding officers of the battalions stationed in the Belfast area, and I was profoundly impressed by the clear understanding of the facts of the situation, not only in military and security terms but in other respects, of what is happening in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Budgen: I must make it clear that my gloomy projection of what might happen if we took the Army out of Northern Ireland was not based on evidence. I have not spoken to people in the Army. I merely projected the view that a Weimar-type situation could happen in this country with a total breakdown of the economic system. I am not suggesting that I know an individual officer who has put himself forward as the future Hitler.
Mr. Mendelson: I am glad to hear that. It was the kind of withdrawal that I hoped to elicit from the hon. Gentleman. I can now leave that matter.
Some of the policies now being considered by those who hope to be candidates in a Constitutional Convention election have begun to produce a new realisation that people who have not for a long time contemplated sitting down together to work out new political arrangements for the Province must now do so. This is a new and positive fact. I do not want to exaggerate it, because amongst the same people are many who, almost in the same breath, are saying, "But I cannot possibly do political work with so-and-so. I find it difficult to think
1222
that I might work out arrangements it so-and-so is included."
The exclusiveness of people against each other still operates, as it has been operating for many years. What is new is that among people of extreme views there are a number who say, "We shall have to make the attempt to sit down together and work out joint proposals that we can accept for the life of the Province".
It is my firm conviction that what emerged from the previous two-day debate on Northern Ireland has done some good in the Province. Quite a number of people felt after that debate that their interests and attitudes had been taken seriously. Hon. Members on both sides, not only in the debate but in their conduct outside, are making a determined effort to understand the attitudes, views, fears and convictions of both the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland. A suspicion had grown that Members of Parliament were not taking enough trouble to improve their understanding of the situation and to gain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. That suspicion has passed. Now many more hon. Members are conducting themselves in such a way that the people of the Province may be reassured.
That may be one of the real contributions to be made by this House between now and when the Constitutional Convention election takes place. I think that the people of Ulster will also regard it as helpful if we attempt to discuss this matter together as we are doing.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I think that my colleagues from Northern Ireland would agree that we should give the White Paper a cautious welcome. There is also a great degree of welcome for the comments made by the official Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) who, in the most overt terms, stated a desire by the British Government to retain unity with the people of Northern Ireland.
I think that we should also welcome what might be called the deliberate vagueness in the White Paper regarding the future. It is wise that a document of this kind should be indicative rather than definitive. Therefore, we welcome this vague document, because it affords

1223
the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to discuss the problem most closely affecting them.
We in Ireland have constantly been reminded by the Government, particularly by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that we must face realities. However, it is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman selects the realities that the Government are prepared to face.
In stating that there must be power sharing and an Irish dimension, the Secretary of State has obviously discarded two realities of political life in Northern Ireland. The first is that power sharing in government is not acceptable to the majority of people in Northern Ireland. The General Election on 28th February clearly demonstrated that point. The fact that 60 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland returned anti-Sunningdale candidates as Members of this honourable House is a clear indication that power sharing, as conceived by the Government, is a non-starter in Ulster. I say that power sharing is a non-starter not because it was rejected on 28th February, but because it institutionalises discrimination in stating that the minority must always have a say in government. This is a dangerous statement to make in a democracy.
Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman said that the election on 28th February was about power sharing in Northern Ireland. I understood that it was basically about Sunningdale and the Council of Ireland and that there was a wide measure of support for power sharing as such.
Mr. Bradford: I am delighted to have the opportunity of clearing the Minister's thinking on this issue. It was about not only the Sunningdale issue but power sharing. I think that this matter will be made very clear in the United Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto at the next General Election.
I want to return to the point about institutionalising discrimination. To insist that a minority must have an automatic part in government is a most dangerous argument to introduce into a democracy, because there will be no control over the demeanour and complexion that that minority might adopt at any given time in future. We may find the minority accepting, adopting and implementing a political philosophy which would be
1224
dangerous in the extreme to the British community as a whole. Therefore, I warn the House to be careful about institutionalising discrimination.
The second reality that the House is not prepared to recognise is the rejection of the Irish dimension. The Unionist Blue Paper clearly stated the kind of agreements and co-operation which might exist between the Government of the South and Northern Ireland. They include tourism and arrangements for the production of power. These are acceptable to the United Ulster Unionists and to the Ulster people as a whole. But we have stated time and again that we will not accept any political secretariat which includes politicians from Southern Ireland.
It has been said that because of our geographical situation, because the North shares the same island as the South, we have a common boundary and that, because of that common boundary, we must in some way come to a special political agreement and arrangement. I suggest that that is nonsense. It is nonsense in the light of the fact that this situation obtains in Europe where countries share common boundaries. However, those countries do not share or, indeed, impose upon each other a sovereign authority or control.
In the White Paper there is a statement to the effect that the Southern Government now recognise Northern Ireland in a way which they have not done since the inception of Northern Ireland. That is simply not true. It is correct to say that Mr. Cosgrave, in a recent statement, recognised the existence of Northern Ireland de facto. But that is one particular kind of recognition. It is not the kind of recognition upon which we in Northern Ireland insist. The kind of recognition upon which we insist is a de jure recognition. A de facto recognition is simply the statement that Northern Ireland, as six counties, exists. That is meaningless, and it is useless in the present political situation. What we want is a clear, unequivocal recognition of our right to exist as part of the United Kingdom. That has not been forthcoming. It is not in existence now. I doubt whether it will ever come in the future.
It is said in reply to this kind of argument that the Southern Government has

1225
a written constitution. This is a golden and very real opportunity for the South to prove how much it cares about violence in the North and about peace in the North of Ireland.
I want now to deal with the possible delay in bringing the new Convention into being in Northern Ireland. Many speakers in the debate have stated that a delay would encourage the IRA. Whether or not we all accept that, the fact today is that the IRA has declared a new onslaught, a new term of violence, upon the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it seems that there needs to be real stability in the Province in the light of this new threat and impending onslaught If we had a Convention under way, particularly dealing with the security aspect, this would deter the terrorists and would most certainly encourage the people of Northern Ireland to hang on and to see this dreadful period of anarchy through.
In that light, although we need the Convention inaugurated we also need immediate measures on security. I suggest that we need almost immediately five battalions of full-time soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and 20 battalions of part-time soldiers in that regiment. We also need a Home Guard. We need this force to release the Army to do the kind of work which only the Army is equipped to do.
I conclude by offering some words of warning about the loose use of language when we discuss Northern Ireland. We have heard time and again this afternoon that we would love to see Protestants and Roman Catholics working together in government. I suggest that this is very dangerous talk and very inaccurate talk, because Protestants and Roman Catholics have worked together in the past. If we mean Republicans and Unionists, let us stick to those terms and use them.
The term "Protestant ascendancy" has also been used. By this there has been the insinuation that the Protestants have wanted to control the Province to the detriment of Roman Catholics. That is simply not true. If there has been a Protestant ascendancy in the past, it is only because Protestants have endeavoured to retain at all costs the British link. If our sin is the determination to remain British, I am prepared to
1226
accept the stain, the smear and the slight of a Protestant ascendancy. We have been prepared to retain this link. We very much want to retain it, and we have been prepared to be maimed, bombed and killed. I ask this honourable House whether the people of Britain are prepared to suffer even a little in order that Britain might stand by us now, helping us to claim only what is ours—our British and United Kingdom citizenship.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: However much one may regret the fact that we are having to debate this White Paper today—and I regret it—we must face the fact that this is a moment of reality for us and, perhaps, the most realistic chance of a new start in Northern Ireland that has occurred in the last five years. It is a new start. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who said that it will probably not be the last step that we shall have to take, although I hope that it will be a long stride forward in the history of Northern Ireland.
I want to comment briefly on the three main subparagraphs of paragraph 45 of the White Paper. Power sharing has been agreed by both parties as clearly the best chance that we can see for a solution in the North. I welcome it generally. I very much regret the words that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). I hope that they were not his last thoughts on this problem. Surely we can accept that power sharing can come in many forms. All that one asks the Convention to do is to approach the matter by looking for a solution which involves a realistic form of power sharing. I should have thought that from the Ulster Protestant point of view, if it could be achieved, that would be in many ways the greatest step it could take to safeguard the one thing which the hon. Member for Belfast, South was asking to be safeguarded above all—his United Kingdom citizenship and his relationship with this House and this country.
We are one. No one suggests for a moment that we are other than that. But if we are to remain one, in the North there has to be realism. I have no doubt that the one thing which can break the Convention is a refusal to accept that

1227
there must be some realistic form of power sharing in the North of Ireland. It need not take the form which was imposed at Sunningdale. I use the word "imposed" because it did not have the general consent of all of them. Not everyone was asked. However, that is all water under the bridge. We are starting again now. Everyone will be asked and everyone will get a chance to be elected. Every aspect and viewpoint will have its chance to be voiced in the Convention. In that Convention I hope that there will be this realistic approach. There must be give and take.
Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to be absolutely accurate. He is right about the invitations to the Sunningdale Conference itself, but he will recall, as he studies these matters so closely, that all parties had the opportunity of taking part in the earlier constitutional talks.
Mr. Miscampbell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was simply a passing remark. It is all water under the bridge. I am sure that we would all do best to forget what happened at either Darlington or Sunningdale. I do not blame anyone. I supported the initiative at Darlington. I supported Sunningdale wholeheartedly. I regret what happened. However, I am merely facing the present position.
When the Convention looks at these matters it will have to arrange its affairs, if it is to have power sharing, so as to give reality to two things. There cannot again be a position in which one party can unilaterally, by simply saying "We are going", create a veto over the Executive. That is a concession which will clearly have to come from the SDLP. Perhaps it will also come from the Unionists side—using that word broadly.
On the other side the test is as it was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). He suggested that the test was that, be the person concerned Catholic or Protestant, is he prepared at this time to work the constitution?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put this carefully. We cannot
1228
realistically ask people who hold the views that he holds—and we all know that a third of the population potentially may hold those views—to give up their aspirations. They are being asked to work with people whose aspiration is a permanent relationship with this country. Both have their ideas about the long-term future. Surely both can accept that and work within the present. The total rejection of these Catholic politicians is unsuitable, for it would seem to me to go ill with the frequent claim, which can be shown statistically to be true, that a substantial minority of the Catholic population votes for unionism in referenda. It can clearly be seen because in the border poll it was not possible to attribute the result to the Protestant population alone. There is always an undercurrent on this question which supports the border. It would seem to be well within the interests of those who hold unionist views that those different views in the Catholic community should be supported.
I agree with the tone of many speeches about the special relationship, and I recognise that this would be a sacrifice that the SDLP would have to make. The special relationship must be recognised, but it must be earned in help from the Southern Government. The debate in the Dail last month was briefly reported in our Press. I see that the main speeches were extremely helpful, but some of the back benches had a quite different view about what should be the relationship between the North and the South. That is the type of propaganda in the South that must be watched and curbed, and the South must help itself.
The White Paper rightly says that any final solution has to be acceptable to the United Kingdom Government, and that is quite understandable. After all, we provide the finance and the force. It is our troops which in large measure, though not exclusively, keep the peace, or attempt to do so, in Northern Ireland. We must ask—whether it is elected in November or in February—whether the Convention, left to itself, will come to a realistic and acceptable arrangement with the British Government, taking no part save an advisory one. This seems to me to be a very real problem. We cannot adopt the solution of a mediæval conclave when electing a Pope when, after six months, they took the roof off. That would

1229
hardly do if there were a conclave at Stormont. In the end they stopped giving them food in mediæval times—
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member is painting a dangerous picture.
Mr. Miscampbell: It is probably a solution which would appeal to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but be that as it may, we must consider whether the Convention would produce an acceptable solution if left to itself. I hope that it would, but there is a very real British dimension in this and we must remember the terms under which the Convention will meet. It will be elected, and it then has six months in which, week by week, the Members will go back to their constituents to report on progress, and here they must carry their constituency parties with them. I fear that unless the reality of what Britain will accept is put to them in the Convention so that they fully understand their position the usual practice of Northern Irish politics may persist and we shall find that at the end of six months nothing has happened. Of course, we could extend the Convention, but that is not a very hopeful prospect.
I know that I cannot change the Government's mind on this, and I fully understand why they have chosen their course of action. It is attractive for a British Government in the present impasse to tell Northern Ireland to sort out its own affairs. Just before we start on this new voyage, interesting though it may be, I wonder whether we do not need a captain in charge of the Convention, whether it would not be a good idea to have representatives in there, not people who can vote, not people of authority but perhaps a Minister of State, or even perhaps, the Secretary of State himself, who could offer guidance.
I have one last message for the 12 Ulster Members in this House. They are probably the only representatives with the elected authority between now and February, or even possibly November, to speak for Northern Ireland. They seem to me to have a great burden and a great duty upon their shoulders because too little in Northern Ireland and in the Press is there painted as a broad picture, and too much is there portrayed as a narrow and partisan scene.
1230
Surely it is possible in the next six months to refrain from taking up inflexible positions, because that holds no possibility for real negotiation. It is no use a Member going to his electorate out in Antrim or Down or Fermanagh and saying that he will not accept certain things under any circumstances, because that would make the election of an Convention a complete waste of time.
I make that appeal especially strongly this evening because from this side of the House there has been a clear indication that broad sections of the Conservative Party hope that the union could continue. I believe that if Northern Ireland could work out for itself a respectable and socially just form of political life, that desire for the union to continue would by no means be confined to these benches. There is wide support on both sides of the House which would show itself if the North could solve its problems.
The solution of those problems would be made impossible if people began adopting positions which subsequently they could not get out of. Flexibility has not been a great characteristic of Ulstermen, but surely the chance they now have is too great to lose by inflexibility. Let us go into the Convention with everything to play for and with open minds. That is Ulster's best hope.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: Perhaps I may qualify one remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) when he talked about power sharing. The people who will share power must believe in that power. They must believe in the responsibility which they are sharing. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for power sharing to work. I believe that there is a general recognition on all sides that power sharing must happen if there is to be any solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. If some sections of the community adamantly set their faces against the kind of situation which is envisaged, or against the union, I think that power sharing will be difficult to achieve.
One thing that is missing from the White Paper is the British dimension, as the Secretary of State said. The matter is not raised in the White Paper. Britain's interest in Northern Ireland is not made clear, and never has been made clear by

1231
any recent Government. I do not believe that it can simply be left to the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the union so long as that is their wish, as decided by the referendum every 10 years.
It is up to this country to say what it wants—to say whether Northern Ireland is important to it. Until we have made that clear, it will be difficult for us to be convincing about Northern Ireland. If we had made it clear earlier we should have avoided much of the Protestant backlash.
I turn to the finance section of the White Paper. I do not believe that one can deal with finance purely on a cost analysis basis. The invisible benefits to Britain have been left out of the calculations. One cannot simply judge them on pounds, shillings and pence. First, the strategic importance of Northern Ireland to Britain as part of the United Kingdom has not been considered. The geographical importance of Northern Ireland in guarding the Western Approaches to Britain, which were so important during the last war, has not been mentioned, nor has the fact that there are airfields, ports and harbours which could be extremely useful to this country, if not essential, if there were another Battle of the Atlantic. I do not know how one would calculate the value of the land mass which guards this country to the west if it were to be maintained on a lend-lease basis.
There is also a very valuable reservoir of manpower in Northern Ireland, which made a great contribution during the war, with men coming forward to fight with the forces of the United Kingdom as a whole. Moreover, Northern Ireland threw up a remarkable number of wartime leaders.
We also leave out of the picture the fact that until the recent events the working force of Northern Ireland had a very good strike record, and productivity has also been good. I believe that until the troubles broke out the record of Northern Ireland as a whole, as a law-abiding country, was better than any in Europe. All those factors must be set in the balance when the financial calculations are made.
The majority population in Northern Ireland should be pleased with the proposals in the White Paper. In fact, the proposals have already been given a
1232
cautious welcome. They have achieved the main objective of having a new election for the Assembly or for whatever body is to succeed it. But we must all deplore the fact that that has been achieved by means of a political strike. The example set in this country a few months ago, of what a political strike could do, was followed in Northern Ireland, and we must deplore that.
I see no insuperable obstacle to increased representation at Westminster. We must wait for the outcome of the Convention to see what the new form of constitution will be in Northern Ireland. But it would be a great advantage if the Secretary of State would declare in principle that Northern Ireland will have fair representation in this House. That would do a great deal to clear the air. The Assembly, or whatever is to succeed it. has already lost functions that it had under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. These important matters will now be decided in this House, and there should be increased representation here.
We must realise that, whatever constitutional changes that are in Northern Ireland, terrorism is what we must deal with first. It must be given priority above all else. First, we must win the psychological battle against the terrorists. We must make them and everyone else understand clearly that we are in this business to win it, and that we shall win it in the end.
Secondly, in order to do that and to relieve our hard-pressed troops in Northern Ireland, we must enlist the aid of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that we can defeat terrorism until we do.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: I rise once more to speak not only for the people of my constituency but, I think, for the people of all Northern Ireland. As I look at the serried ranks on both sides of the House. I think that we all realise the depth of the concern shown by the House for the horror of Ulster. The House saw the 1973 Act as a realistic way forward. It may have seemed realistic here, but it was not realistic in Northern Ireland. That is why that Act is dead and buried, and will never see resurrection day.

1233
We are told that the Convention may discuss the police and not the Army. All that the people of Northern Ireland have ever asked in security matters is that the police be the front line of defence against terrorism. That is the basic reason for having a police force in any nation—to protect the law-abiding citizen from the law breaker. We cannot expect any police force to have the support of law breakers, whether they call themselves nationalists, IRA, freedom fighters or whatever. They are still law breakers; they live by terror and are out to break the law, to upset the normal standards of behaviour in the community in which they exist. They exist for no other reason than to destroy the present order and replace it with something of their own making.
We ask the Army not to be policemen but to support the civil power in restoring law and order. Whatever the cost of that may be, I believe that it will always be much cheaper than allowing anarchy and bloody murder to continue. We were told, as we usually are told in every debate in the House, about the sectarian murder of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland, the inference being that only Roman Catholics are victims of the sectarian murders and assassinations. When I heard that today I was thoroughly disgusted, and once more I checked the figures. From 1972, 166 Roman Catholics have died from the assassin's activities. Eighty-three Protestants, two Muslims—they were both tea boys in the British Army—and one German—the police did not know his religion—have also died. It is evident from those figures that the assassin's bullet can strike at any place when the assassin thinks that he is doing good for his cause. What good murder has ever done for any cause I cannot tell.
Further, 729 civilians have died. Were they not assassinated principally by the murderers of the IRA? Practically all of them died as a result of IRA activity. Practically all of them were the victims of the assassins and murderers who set out to destroy the community in which they lived. In addition, approximately 12,000 people have been injured. We have not been told that 90 per cent. of the businesses in Londonderry that have been destroyed belonged to Protestants. They alone are the people who have
1234
suffered. Perhaps I am going too far in saying that. I have known Roman Catholic business men and farmers who have suffered. But let the House be clear that it is the Protestant community at every level that has suffered the greatest amount of damage, arson, murder and intimidation from the thugs and murderers that stalk our land.
We are told today, as usual, that we must support the police. I have always done so in their fight against the terrorists. However, the police are people who are attacked on every occasion by every man who wishes to break the law in every community. When there is support for the police in their rôle of keeping law and order in the community, that support must be without any qualification; it must be wholehearted. Support must come from the heart of every man and woman. There must be no drawing back, and no quibbling. There must be 100 per cent. support for the police, and the police must be defended in the actions that they are forced to take.
We are told about the security that is required for minorities. I think that hon. Members will realise from what I have said and from their own knowledge of the situation that there is a majority in Ulster which consists of people who require, above all, protection against the IRA. In saying that I am not forgetting that the activities of the IRA have probably borne more heavily upon the people in the Bogside, in the Creggan and Shan-tallow than on any other section of the community. Indeed, only a fortnight ago the people of Strabane had their town taken over for eight hours by the IRA. The IRA carried out armed patrols through a housing estate in Strabane and the Army directed traffic through Donegal and Lifford to get into their home town. These are matters that are not forgotten and they are not easily or lightly forgiven.
We are told that security is necessary. There is no man who will deny that. But how are we to get security? That is a question that must be solved quickly. We are calling in Northern Ireland for a Home Guard who will live among the community and who will be able to deal with murder wherever it may be found. That Home Guard could be raised quickly, and in a realistic manner. It should have a broad base and strong

1235
support throughout the community. It could act not only as a Home Guard but as an intelligence gatherer. It could be a force that would be a major component in the restoration of law and order in the community.
We are told that we should join the RUC Reserve or the UDR. There are many men in the community who wish to play their part and who for various reasons cannot do so. We must never forget that there are many people in the community who are denied the right to serve their country. I was such a person, and yet I made it to this House. I was taken into the UDR and then discharged as being unsuitable after 28 days, yet I made it here. It will be seen that the people of Londonderry did not share the opinion of the Army commanders and their political masters as to my suitability to defend the people of Londonderry or to defend my Province of Ulster. I defended it as a member of the Ulster Special Constabulary, and until the day I die that is a fact of which I shall be inordinately proud. I think that that constabulary was one of the finest forces that ever walked the roads of this Kingdom. It was prepared to defend that land, and it defended it well for 50 years.
The Government are responsible in any province and in any country for the State's existence. That is one of the basic reasons for a Government's existence—namely, to ensure that the State continues to exist and to see that the people who live in a tract of land or on an island have the right to live their lives as the majority sees fit. Therefore, they must defend the status quo and the political existence of the State at every level.
I believe that it is impossible to take into the Government men who believe that the State should not exist. That is not to say that we will not share power, but I believe that we can never share government with those whose primary objective, in whatever way we look upon the word "primary" or in which ever context it is used, is a united Ireland. I believe that when the SDLP is willing to allow the Unionist Party to sit in on its meetings when it is discussing how it will get rid of Northern Ireland by bringing it into a united Ireland, we may consider the SDLP sitting in on the Government of Northern Ireland.
1236
I now turn to the future. We must as is laid down in the White Paper and in the Bill that will be put before us, have an Assembly election. Such an election should be concerned with the anomalies that exist in the representation of various constituencies in Northern Ireland. We should try to level off the numbers that are needed to elect a Member in the various constituencies. That could easily be done by having three additional Members.
I call attention once more to the position which those from Northern Ireland find in this House. The average number of electors per constituency in England is 65,000. For Scotland I think the average is 50,000 and it is roughly the same for Wales. Of the six largest constituencies, three are from Northern Ireland—namely, Antrim, North; Antrim, South; and Down, North. If we considered the seven largest constituencies I believe that Londonderry would be included. The smallest constituencies in the United Kingdom are in Scotland and Central London and, I think, in Newcastle. These matters should be considered. if there is to be representation in this House from the United Kingdom that representation should at the least be the same throughout the country. Failing that, representation should be the same for the areas taken on their own merits. These are matters that cannot be treated lightly because they can alter the balance of power in this House and the political realities of life.
There is no reason for not making changes simply because a Government do not like what is going to come out of an election after boundary changes. Indeed, not to make them would be a direct negation of democracy, which would bring not only the Government of the day but this House into disrepute.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Harry West: I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words about this White Paper. May I take up the point about under-representation, dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who quoted figures for constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. If he will forgive my saying so, he was a little low in those figures. Nevertheless, there is a vast

1237
difference, on average, between the number of constituents represented by one Member of Parliament from Scotland and the number represented by one Member from Northern Ireland. The figures I have show that on average each of the 71 Scottish Members represents 73,000 people. On average each of the 12 Members for Northern Ireland represents 128,000 people. This is unfair representation for Northern Ireland.
We are under-represented. I have said before that it is unfortunate that at this critical stage in the history of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom we should be discussing these serious matters when our community is so badly underrepresented. That is not the only way in which we are under-represented. There are constituencies in the North of Ireland arranged for the Assembly elections at Stormont which are similarly underrepresented. I refer particularly to the constituencies of Antrim, North; Antrim, South, and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Of the 12 constituencies in Northern Ireland, nine contain an average of 13,000 voters per Member. In the Antrim, North constituency there are almost 15,000 voters per Member. Antrim, South is much the same and in Fermanagh and South Tyrone there are almost 14,500 voters per Member. To be fair to the Members in those constituencies, there should be at least one extra Member to bring the figures up to a proper representation in Stormont.
We hope to introduce an amendment to the Schedule of the Bill next Monday and to have an opportunity of debating it. We have a suspicion that there was a good reason for arranging the figures in Northern Ireland in this way. In fairness, I must say that there has been a great shift of population in recent times, principally because of the troubles. Because of this we feel that in the three constituencies I have mentioned, where the figures show that there is not the same representation as in the other nine, there should be one extra Member appointed for the Assembly or whatever institution of government is selected for Northern Ireland in future.
We are greatly troubled by the question of defence in Northern Ireland. I do not want to dwell on this because
1238
we have talked a lot about it already. We value the work done by the security forces in Northern Ireland. We find that there appears to be some interference from the political side, which is of course denied by both Front Benches. There is, nevertheless, the problem that in Northern Ireland security is not up to the standard it should be. As citizens of Northern Ireland we still have to sit back and watch that country being destroyed and people being maimed and killed. Some may claim that there is an easing of terrorist activity. It is fair to say that this has become so common there that a lot of it does not even make the news—a tragic circumstance.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the lives of my constituents are at risk in Northern Ireland at present. He has said that there has been political interference with the rôle of the security forces and that they are not able to carry out their task. He said that this had been done by both Front Benches. Can he give specific examples when either my right hon. Friend or the two previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland in the Conservative administration interfered so that people were killed or maimed or property was damaged?
Mr. West: The hon. Member has hardly quoted me correctly when he said that I accused both Front Benches. I said that both Front Benches denied political interference. Admittedly it amounts to the same thing. Several senior Army officers have come out in public and made this point from their practical experience of service in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNamara: Who?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: As this is my responsibility, I defy the right hon. Gentleman to say which senior Army officers have said this. It is important, when troops from this country are serving in Northern Ireland. I can think of three or four occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has come to me and asked me to interfere politically in a security matter in his own area. He knows that. I have refused to do so. I must insist that he gives the names of the senior Army officers who have said this.
Mr. West: This is a most peculiar accusation. I do not recall going to the right hon. Gentleman in his office and asking him to interfere in a security matter. Will he give the information?
Mr. Rees: Yes. On four occasions the right hon. Gentleman has been to me asking me to provide security for him and I have said that I will not interfere politically, that I will do so only on the advice of security advisers. I will not interfere in Northern Ireland in these matters. It is a security advisory matter. On each occasion the right hon. Gentleman has been back asking me to give my instructions. I do not interfere in security matters in this way. The right hon. Gentleman must know the names of the senior officers who are supposed to have disagreed with me. We must have the names. It is important to British troops.
Mr. West: I give the names of General Walker and Lord Richard Cecil. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, however. It is untrue to say that I went to him to ask for security protection for myself. The requests for my protection did not come at my insistence. I was present on a number of occasions when requests were made on my behalf by a number of my colleagues, two of whom are sitting on this bench tonight. Never have I made a request to the right hon. Gentleman. He should withdraw.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the right hon. Member not agree that the leaders of every other party in the Assembly receive protection, including parties far beneath the size of the right hon. Member's party? Is it not a fact that the local police in the right hon. Member's area have advised that his wife and family and the right hon. Member himself were as much entitled to protection as the leaders of the Alliance Party, the SDLP, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) the leader of the Vanguard Party or myself? Will the right hon. Member ask the Secretary of State why it is that he is the only leader of any party in Northern Ireland—regardless of threats that have been made on his family which are substantiated by the police—who does not receive protection?
Mr. West: That does not worry me as much as does the misrepresentation of
1240
my conduct by the Secretary of State. He has said that I went to him on four occasions asking for protection. This is not true. I have never been to him asking for protection for myself. He should withdraw that remark. It is wrong for him to make that accusation.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: We must get this clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that senior Army officers—
Mr. West: That is not the point.
Mr. Rees: It is. He said that senior Army officers had disagreed with me. He has offered the name of a captain who appears to have had a view on this.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman for the names of people who had served in Ireland who could give chapter and verse on my having interfered politically. He has not given them. I then told him that on these matters of security for politicians in Northern Ireland I do not decide. It is a matter for security. I am not prepared to interfere politically.
But he must give the names of these people who have served in Northern Ireland who have told him of this, because it is not true of this administration—and I am convinced that it is not true of the previous administration. It is part of the tommyrot that passes for discussion on security matters.
Mr. West: I must again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still holds the view that I went to him on four occasions in his office in Belfast asking for protection for myself. Is that true or not?
Mr. Rees: On four occasions, and maybe more, the right hon. Gentleman has been in a deputation to see me on various matters when the subject has been raised on his behalf. On one occasion at least when he was there he put the case to me. I am not prepared to interfere in this matter. It must be a matter for the security people. Politicians must not get involved in it, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do.
Mr. West: We have now heard the truth, and the truth is that I did not make direct representations to the right hon. Gentleman for security for myself, as he tried to convey to the House a few minutes. That was quite untrue.
Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Now that he has finished his little dialogue with my right hon. Friend, would he be kind enough to answer the questions I asked? Which incidents, which occasions, who has been injured or maimed, which property has been damaged, as a result of political interference from either Front Bench? Will he please let us know? It is important.
Mr. West: We have heard quite a lot from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, about the cost of the bomb damage. All that is a result of terrorist activities there which we feel could have been curtailed in Northern Ireland. I have already given the names of two Army officers who have spoken publicly on the matter. There are a number of others who do not want their names mentioned because they are serving officers in the Army, and the House can very well understand that they do not want to be involved in this. I believe that I have now successfully defended myself against untrue accusations coming from the Secretary of State.
Mr. McNamara: if the right hon. Gentleman will not give us the names, will he give us details of the victims and places where direct political interference has resulted in loss of life or damage to property? If he will not give names, will he give us those details?
Mr. West: It is a little ridiculous to ask that. The whole picture in Northern Ireland is one of disaster because of terrorist activities. I do not make a habit of listing each item of destruction and every person killed or maimed, but it is public knowledge that this has happened. I do not keep records of such things.
Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I must come back on this point. He has spoken of political interference from the two Front Benches. He has refused to name officers who have spoken of this. Will he now let us know of occasions on which people were killed or maimed or property damaged as a direct result of political intereference? If he cannot do so he must withdraw that very wild accusation. He has to do so.
Mr. West: I suppose the hon. Gentleman is right to come to the rescue of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Of course he defends the right hon. Gentleman, but these things have happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no evidence."] I say there is. I live in the community. All those who live in Northern Ireland know this to be correct. I will not waste any more time on the point. On this question of security generally, what worries us a lot is the continuation of the destruction that has been going on for the last five years. A country that was built up by your forefathers in Northern Ireland as a happy, prosperous little country, one of the best in Europe, if not further afield, is still being destroyed by terrorist activities.
We firmly believe that local people in Northern Ireland should be given a greater opportunity of participating in the defence of that country. In the 1939–45 period, whenever our country was under attack—admittedly on a limited scale—from German bombers and the danger of invasion, though the danger and destruction at that time were nothing like they are today in Northern Ireland, we were allowed to establish our Home Guard to defend our homes, our territory and our families. A much better case exists today for the establishment of a Home Guard in Northern Ireland to keep terrorists at bay. I cannot for the life of me see why the present British Government, and the former British Government also, should have turned their minds against this request. It seems sensible. We have put the case to the Secretary of State but as yet we have had no favourable reply.
A further point I wish to raise concerns finance, with which I am sure the Secretary of State will deal when he is presenting the Bill next Monday. He has already promised that he will go into financial matters. I hope that in presenting the financial benefits that Northern Ireland gets through being a member within the United Kingdom he will give all the facts, and that when he gives the visible benefits coming from direct taxation he will make an effort at presenting the benefits which accrue to the British economy through indirect taxation of various kinds. I am sure those figures are available and we, and the general public, would expect him to give them, in producing all the

1243
facts, and not to present a one-sided picture.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has disappeared, probably to cool off, because I wanted to raise one other matter with him. I will delay saying what I had wished to say in case he comes back.
Rev. Ian Paisley: He will not come back.
Mr. West: It is most unfortunate that even today in this House in talking of the two sections of the community we have had mention of Protestants and Catholics. I have said before in this House that the trouble in Northern Ireland does not arise between Catholics and Protestants as such but because a majority of people there want to remain within the United Kingdom and the minority want to go into a United Ireland. It so happens that in the main the people who want to remain within the United Kingdom are Protestants and the bulk of the minority are Roman Catholics. But it is not a religious row. The trouble arises because of the different aspirations of those two sections of the community.
That brings me to the vexed question of power sharing. The phrase "power sharing" has been used loosely in the community. Most people regard power sharing as requiring the minority to be included in the Government or Cabinet in Northern Ireland. There are other ways of sharing power. In this House the Leader of the Opposition has considerable power, although he has not a seat in the Cabinet. We humble people from Northern Ireland—11 of us—have considerable power if we want to use it. We have the balance of power, given the opportunity to use it. We have had that opportunity on several occasions and have not used it. Members who serve in a Parliament can have power although they have not a seat in the Executive or Cabinet.
We have said publicly that we are prepared to approve an administration with majority rule because that is the British system, and we are British citizens, part of the United Kingdom. We are prepared to approve majority rule, whichever party comes out as the majority party after the election. In addition we are prepared to facilitate the minority party by a system
1244
of strong committees to supervise administration and to initiate legislation.
Mr. McNamara: If the right hon. Gentleman's party is not in the majority but is a minority against a coalition, would be accept a coalition?
Mr. West: Yes.
Mr. McNamara: Then why did he not do it last time?
Mr. West: The last exercise was a gerrymandered Executive that proved distasteful to all democrats in the country. That was one reason why we did not accept it and would have nothing to do with it. We would not give it credibility because it was gerrymandered and was not established on the British parliamentary system.
It is unrealistic to expect people to serve in a Cabinet when they have aspirations so diametrically opposed to each other as had the members of the Cabinet of the last administration in Northern Ireland. In the Executive there were Unionist members whose aspirations were to remain within the United Kingdom. Serving with them were colleagues whose aspirations were the destruction of the constitution of Northern Ireland and uniting the country. It is unrealistic to expect a minority with that type of aspiration to work loyally in a Cabinet for the long-term interests of Northern Ireland and its people. That is the fault we find in this so-called power sharing exercise that has been so loosely spoken of. If a similar situation arose, for instance, in Scotland or Wales, the British Parliament would not impose conditions on the Scottish and Welsh people. It dare not do so.
A story has been put abroad in the community that Northern Ireland does not want an early election. That is untrue. My colleagues and I mix freely with the electorate from one end of the country to the other, and we are in a position to judge the temper of the people. They are looking for an early election and it is false to think that we can put off the election to the Constitutional Convention in the hope that the previous administration may regain its credibility in the community.
If we want Northern Ireland to be restored to a peaceful condition, we must

1245
have an early election to the Constitutional Convention, so that we can sit round the table with properly elected members to work out our own future. I assure the House with all the sincerity I can command, and on behalf of my colleagues, that if we are given this opportunity to sit down with the newly-elected Ulster representatives in Stormont we shall do our best to arrive at a just and fair solution to our problems and to restore a peaceful and just society.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: One cannot talk of the serried ranks of hon. Members listening to the debate, but one can at least pay tribute to the quality of the contributions that have been made and the sincerity of all hon. Members. It would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his sincerity and realism, and that goes for the Government, too. I do not often find myself in the position of paying such a tribute, but we recognise that the Government and the Secretary of State have faced the problems honestly and squarely.
We hope that the opportunity given us will result in a step forward. I liked the right hon. Gentleman's sensible approach—that what we are doing now need not be construed as the last chance for Northern Ireland. One should take that sort of attitude so as not to prejudice the operation from the beginning. The Minister is right in saying that it is an important chance. I hope, as we take this chance, that we in Ulster and Members of this House will realise that in this sort of situation one must have respect for the will of the people. In the last analysis the will of the people is always determined by the greatest voice in the community. We have come through a rather frustrating and dangerous period because this Parliament ignored the will of the people.
One may throw up one's hands in horror at the idea of people taking industrial action for political causes. It was done in the circumstances by those people who felt they had been denied their democratic rights and that their voice was being ignored. The message was spoken out very clearly during the last United Kingdom parliamentary election. That was reinforced by the submission to the House of a petition
1246
signed by 313,000 electors, who unambiguously said they were not prepared to give consent to the form of power-sharing Executive that was imposed upon Northern Ireland. The Ulster people said they were not prepared to give their consent to the sort of all-Ireland institutions envisaged in the Sunningdale Agreement. This Parliament ignored the clear, stark message emerging from Northern Ireland. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland took the only peaceful way that was open to them to remedy that situation.
I recognise that nothing is to be gained by raking over the ashes, but one can learn some lessons from the situation. As we seek a solution in the future we must take into account how the people in Northern Ireland feel. We shall not be able to talk away all our differences. At the end of the day there will be a majority of some size. Whatever its size, that majority will have the decisive voice in Northern Ireland.
I was particularly encouraged to find that the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland recognise clearly what has happened and concede that it would have been foolish and wrong to hold fresh elections to the Assembly, because those elections would not have produced an Assembly that could support an Executive. I hope the recognition of that fact will now be extended to the situation that must develop. There is no point in inviting the proposed Constitutional Convention to consider what has been rejected, no matter how varied or titivated. The principle has been clearly rejected.
The proposals in the White Paper can be put to good use. I am sorry there are serious deficiencies in the White Paper. The most serious difficulty referred to by many hon. Members is the under-representation of Northern Ireland in this House. All of us in Ulster will have rejoiced when the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland declared in very welcome terms that he wanted the union to be maintained and that there was now nothing to be done which would sever the connection. There was much satisfaction to be gained from the manner in which he said that. But having said it, if hon. Members want to maintain Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, we in Northern Ireland are

1247
entitled to the full rights of United Kingdom citizens.
Many Members have said today that if we are to remain in the union the final decision would have to be taken in this Parliament. Important decisions will be taken shortly. When these crucial decisions have to be taken, how can anyone defend a situation in which Ulster is under-represented?
Before this Parliament produced the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as part of an Irish settlement, Ulster, with an electorate of 600,000, had 12 Members. Today, with an electorate of over 1 million, it still has only 12 Members. As we consider the interim arrangements proposed by the Government for the future government of Northern Ireland, the case for full representation in this House is immeasurably strengthened.
In case anyone is under the illusion that increased representation will mean a gain entirely for the coalition that I represent, I must say that it will not. The increase will increase the representation of other parties. There is an unarguable case for early action on this matter. Apart from doing technical justice to Northern Ireland, it will do more than any promises or guarantees to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that it is regarded as part of the United Kingdom.
It has been said that the reason that we have been denied our proper representation is that it would offend the Irish Republic and infringe the so-called "Irish dimension". I find it totally unacceptable and unreasonable that part of the United Kingdom should be denied its proper representation because a foreign country would find it objectionable and because it would impair good relations. There will never be good relations with the Irish Republic if that sort of term and condition is set for it. I hope that not only here but in Dublin there will be a quick recognition that increased representation at Westminster is important, and could benefit Ireland.
I also subscribe to the view that failing to put a date or time scale on elections is a deficiency. We all know that we cannot rush into elections without being able to assess the climate that will prevail. There are many factors to be con
1248
sidered, including a possible election to this Parliament, and the security situation. But I am sure that the feeling in Northern Ireland is clamantly for an early election. I also feel, apart from what the electorate as a whole may think, that if the Convention is to be useful, the sooner it meets the better. In my discussions with the Secretary of State I told him that I thought that the elections should have been held yesterday. The longer we go on postponing the debates, discussions, negotiations—whatever one calls them—the more entrenched positions will be. A party political situation will grow up which will set at naught the hopes of the Convention before it meets. So I am very strongly for elections as early as possible.
It would be wrong to discuss the White Paper without referring to the security situation. Many of us were hoping that this new opportunity which was being presented to Northern Ireland would lead to a situation in which we could hope for at least a truce, if not a peace. As yet, there is no evidence that our hopes will be fulfilled. Indeed, there are some ugly pointers to the contrary—that we may expect fairly soon an unhappy escalation in the situation.
I hope that our fears are unfounded and that it is not too late to make an appeal to let the people talk in peace. But one has to be practical in this situation and ready to take on the challenge from those who want to wage war against the community.
I am well aware of how hon. Members and citizens of this part of the United Kingdom feel about the safety and wellbeing of Her Majesty's troops in Northern Ireland. I understand the desire to bring them home, and I support the argument that this should be done at the right and proper time. However, I find it a little irritating in this situation to have to consider the so-called temporary use, as envisaged in the White Paper, of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. We must remember that it was this Parliament which decided to take over the responsibility for the internal security arrangements of Northern Ireland. When political decisions were taken, it was inevitable that the Army would be saddled with this millstone for five years, and probably even longer.

1249
I believe that the Army is not the right organisation to tackle this job. I am convinced that it should be done through a police framework. I believe that there should be a new look at the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has not benefited from the arrangements in the way it should have benefited to deal with the situation. Indeed, in my opinion, it is far too inefficient, and we have too many chairborne officers. A new look should be taken at the force itself and its rôle. If that rôle is honestly faced, we shall receive a response from the community in Northern Ireland to serve in the force. It is a sad admission to make that there are few recruits coming in, but it is understandable because the status and rôle of the police in the community is ill-defined, and morale is low.
The rôle of the RUC Reserve also needs to be examined; it is an appendage without real meaning. I believe that a lot would be gained by giving the reserve its own officer structure and a precise rôle. The reserve could be split into categories for different functions. It can be given a precise function in security matters and also a precise function in normal policing. Once this is done, I believe that there will be a response from the community. The UDR has not received the support one would like to have seen it given. This is largely due to the fact that the rôle and purpose of the regiment has been blurred. Often the method of using part-time soldiers has been unnecessarily burdensome in terms of loss of time from their well-paid work. If this became a more local force, with a local command structure which had incorporated within it a home guard, I believe that in a remarkably short time the Army's rôle in the security situation in Northern Ireland could be reduced to a small specialist one. It is important that we get its rôle right. Unless we are able to defeat the terrorists, or any sort of terrorist organisation, there will be no hope for a political democracy.
No matter what we do now, or how wide the support may be for any solution, if we are practical people we must realise that at some point in the not too distant future there will be a fresh violent challenge to authority in Northern Ireland. That is a price which any community pays when it lets the rule of law collapse or when it gives
1250
violence and rebellion political credibility. There is always an international gain on the part of some in embarrassing the United Kingdom by supporting subversion and terrorism in Northern Ireland. The challenge will happen again in Northern Ireland, regrettable though that is. In the decisions we take now, particularly in relation to security, we must bear in mind that we are not dealing with something which will end and be put to bed; it will be with us for quite a while to come.
Apart from the organisation of the security forces, we need to look at the whole aspect of law and order, which has collapsed in a frightening way. The standards of the community as a whole have crashed. What used to be one of the most law-abiding parts of the United Kingdom has suffered an enormous growth in crime, and young people have grown up in a situation in which if they are denied something they can simply reach out and grab it by force. That situation will be reflected in the community for a considerable time.
Whatever form the future government of Northern Ireland takes, and whoever mans it, it must be in a position to provide a tough policy on the rule of law so as to win back respect for the rule of law. This will be made easier if we now, in dealing with the present situation, ensure that the Government and the authorities involved give proper respect to law and order.
There is much dissatisfaction with the present emergency provisions. I shall not digress on something which will be dealt with in greater detail later, but the whole apparatus of law enforcement in Northern Ireland cannot be defended. We have become far too complacent. Under the Emergency Provisions Act a man can be taken in for 28 days, but that 28-days period has become meaningless. He can be kept for months. But, far worse, in the ordinary process of the law, we have in prison people who have been on remand for 11, 12 and even 15 months.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Shame.
Mr. Craig: Do not let us forget for a moment that those men are innocent until proved guilty. We should not accept the idea of people spending such

1251
a length of time in prison in the circumstances I have mentioned. But this is happening, even though more manpower than ever before has been directed into the judiciary and the prosecution services. Part of the problem lies in the whole political climate attached to these things, and far too often people are taken into custody before there is any reality of a genuine prima facie case against them, and are being held in custody in the hope that some sort of case can be cooked up. That would destroy anyone's respect for the rule of law. I hope that as we move forward to the White Paper we shall do so in the context of improving both the security position and respect for the use of normal legal processes.
Perhaps the main task of the Convention should be to look at what it can do in Northern Ireland to build up a common allegiance between both religious communities—if one has to talk about religion. I resent this, and I do not think that it is a particularly accurate way to proceed, but we have to see if we can end the situation in which almost one-third of the community has persistently refused to consider giving allegiance. It may not be possible, but we should see if it is possible to meet these people. That is far more worth while than to try to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Ulster people are flabbergasted when they read of hon. Members here talking about some form of constitutionally enforced coalition in Northern Ireland and then judge the standards which hon. Members set for themselves and the remarks here about even proposed voluntary coalitions. That sort of comparison is a valid one, and I hope that hon. Members will face it. There will not be and there cannot be any agreement on an enforced coalition or power-sharing structure at Executive level between people who are working for diametrically opposed situations.
The people of Northern Ireland are not content just to say, "We want to be part of the United Kingdom." They want to be governed in such a way as to prevent the end of the Union. There has to be a positive reaction to those who are working to bring about a united Ireland, and we cannot sit down in a government with people who are working to bring an
1252
end to the constitution. It is futile dreaming to think that we can arrive at such a formula.
I believe that the overwhelming feeling in Northern Ireland will be expressed in this elected Convention. We want to be in the United Kingdom, and we want to be governed in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, according to the same standards and the same principles of democracy.
The Convention will probably recommend that we look at this problem in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. If it is done in that way, no one will be able to say that it is the product of a bigoted Unionist Party. The greatest guarantee of fairness and impartiality is to have a common system of government throughout the whole United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State admitted that he had to adopt a far from satisfactory method of governing Northern Ireland—by Order in Council—in this interim period because this Parliament was so overloaded that it could not deal with the comparatively small volume of business that Northern Ireland would involve. That is not only a reason for getting on and doing something about Northern Ireland; it is a reason for getting on and doing something about the United Kingdom as a whole and seeing how we can lessen the burden on this Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland will welcome it.
Of course, there is an Irish dimension. It is a dimension of being good neighbours. The land frontier is our frontier, and it is the United Kingdom's as well. The Secretary of State said that Northern Ireland was in a unique position, in that it had a land frontier with the Irish Republic. However, it is also a frontier of the United Kingdom. It is natural that there should be good neighbourly relations between the people of all parts of these islands. They should be more than just good friends, and they should be working together. If everyone's place in this is recognised, that situation can be brought about, but it cannot come about by any kind of half-way arrangement.
We in Northern Ireland will not consent to any arrangement which can be described as shared sovereignty, a condominium, or any device of that nature.

1253
We want to remain in the United Kingdom, and we claim our full rights as citizens of the United Kingdom. All of us who represent the United Unionist Coalition know that our parties will play a constructive rôle in this elected Convention. But it will be a realistic rôle, and we hope that we shall be able to heal the scars in our community.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. William van Straubenzee: There were some hon. Members who began this debate in a spirit of hope—a hope to which we can still hold on—but, when we listened to speeches such as that of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), we heard the old sounds coming out of Northern Ireland with which we were familiar in the past. It is valuable that they should be expressed, but they show the difficult task which lies ahead of the Secretary of State, of which I am sure he is well aware. It behoves none of us to make light of the political difficulties still ahead of us in Northern Ireland.
The House will understand that although happily there remains a wide range of bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland policies, which I hope will continue, there is criticism from this side of the necessity for this discussion. I do not propose to go scoring back over the past unnecessarily, but I do not accept the inevitability of the collapse of the Executive. Judgments must be made on this matter. I am particularly critical of what happened over the famous walk or march back to work. I want to return to that point later.
I believe that within the official trade union movement of Northern Ireland—I am carefully distinguishing the official trade union movement from any political movement purporting to represent working people—are some of the finest people from both communities. I think that anything, however it worked out, whoever was to blame or whatever the fault, which tended to weaken their position would be extremely serious.
There is one group of people who have not been mentioned throughout our discussions but who ought to have mention in the winding up period. I suspect that they have not been mentioned because—great credit to them—they have been taken totally for granted. Throughout all these
1254
constant changes and forms of Government—now there is a new one—we have taken the Northern Ireland Civil Service for granted. I have had 17 months experience of working with civil servants in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think that I can say that the United Kingdom owes them a warm debt of gratitude for the way in which they have kept the administration going under different forms of Government, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. I know that they have done their work under great personal strain. I am thinking not only of the men at the top, who are technically called the mandarins, but of the small men, and women—small in terms of seniority—who, for example, take round the social security payments, and so on. These people have played a very great part in the life of Northern Ireland. We should remember them when we are contemplating yet another form of Government which they will have to serve.
Although none of the newly-appointed Ministers is here—I am sure they are busily engaged—the House should understand that few Ministers are under greater personal strain than the Secretary of State and the Ministers who are responsible for a Mark II version of direct rule. They have some very hard work to do, particularly the junior Ministers, because of the day-to-day administration of all the Departments, plus the travel and other strains which I know will be put upon them. I am sure that they will accept our good wishes as they set out on their new work.
I am glad that the debate opened with the Secretary of State's stalwart statement about power sharing. That is one of the most encouraging features of what otherwise I identify as a rather sombre debate. His phrase, as I recall, was that the concept of power sharing had bitten deeply into many people. I believe that is right. That was my impression. But the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and others, make us realise that a large number of people still do not accept the concept in principle.
What one must say of it is that it brought to the surface of that part of the United Kingdom men of very considerable ability. They are not the only men of very considerable ability in Northern

1255
Ireland. I am not making that case at all. There are men of ability in all parties. But I should have thought that a fair and unbiased observer would say of some of those who came into office as a result of power sharing, that in any assembly of people or in any kind of executive, whatever form it may take, they were men who had a considerable amount to contribute, and they did it with distinction and, in a short period, they made a considerable imprint, not only in Northern Ireland but also abroad where some of them travelled.
I believe that that was important. I believe that intelligent opinion—there is a considerable amount in Northern Ireland—has understood that. Many people feel that to have a final solution which virtually permanently excludes from effective contribution to executive action in Northern Ireland men of this kind must be a weakness and a loss for all communities and peoples in Northern Ireland.
I want to meet head-on a particular argument that has been developed, particularly from the Opposition side of the House. That is the argument that one cannot share power with men who aspire eventually to a united Ireland. Obviously this is a crucially important argument. In effect, if it is conceded, it excludes from effective power sharing a very substantial minority of people.
Captain Orr: Before my hon. Friend gets into that argument, will he concede that it is important in this context to define what he means by "power sharing"?
Mr. van Straubenzee: Not entirely—because I think that at present it is an open question. My hon. and gallant Friend did not have the advantage, although he has attended most carefully almost the whole debate, of listening to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, for example. I hope that I do not do my hon. and gallant Friend an injustice.
Captain Orr: I did have that advantage.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. The identification, as I understand it, is between taking part in a minority position in some form of committee which discusses legis
1256
lation as distinct from, in some way, having an effective voice in the executive actions which carry that out. I shall not seek to define this too exactly, for I cannot. That is, partially, what the Convention is all about. I am dealing with the questions of principle.
There are right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches and in Government and potentially in Government who believe that the right way forward for this country is to submerge its sovereignty in a greater sovereignty in Europe. I am not saying that I agree with that view. I happen not to agree with it in terms of moving sovereignty. But that view is held and deeply held by some. No hon. Member, or only a very few hon. Members on either side of this House, would hold that such a man who held that view and argued it was unfitted to take part in the government of the nation. What I am saying is that if I am asked to agree that, in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom standards should apply, I say this: United Kingdom standards insist that one should be required to argue one's case, certainly, but not to shoot and bomb one's case.
I do not happen to be a Republican. I hope I make that perfectly clear. I do not happen to wish to see Northern Ireland go into the South. I share the hope of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) that by the free consent of the majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, for as long as that applies—it will be for them to say—Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom.
But I absolutely accept the right of people in Northern Ireland to argue a point of view different from mine, and I cannot for the life of me see that there is anything improper in discussing and arguing and seeking to persuade. It is wrong if a person, for doing so, is disqualified from holding executive power. Of course, it means that as long as such people do that, they must, in the way in which the last group who took part in the Executive did, bind themselves to the good of Northern Ireland according to the oath that was set out in the White Paper. But if we are to proceed from there on the narrow basis that anyone who conscientiously believes that the future of Northern Ireland rests in the

1257
Republican direction cannot hold executive power then the future is very grim indeed.
We have spoken about the Protestant backlash, but for heavens' sake let us watch the Catholic backlash as well. We tread a very difficult path here and we can so easily get the balance badly wrong.
Mr. Molyneaux: The analogy my hon. Friend was drawing earlier between those who support integration and federalism in the EEC and those who support a united Ireland is not quite accurate. Does my hon. Friend not agree that perhaps one of the major causes of suspicion lay in the fact that the SDLP element in the Northern Ireland Government constantly made trips to Dublin to consult with and, presumably, to take orders from a foreign Government? Is that not a different situation?
Mr. van Straubenzee: I was not addressing my mind to that. I am not talking about the conduct of individual persons and I am not commenting, because I do not know, on what may or may not have happened. I was directing myself to what it seemed had been argued today, the matter of principle that if a man believed that the right way forward for his country was the Republican way, involving integration with the South, he should be eliminated from taking part in the executive decisions in the North. I reject that. So long as the argument is put forward peacefully and by persuasion, and not by the bomb and the bullet, it is part of the United Kingdom tradition that he should be enabled to do so. It is no good trying to persuade me that United Kingdom principles should apply in one respect but should not apply in others.
Next I come to discrimination, and here again the point I make has been contested. There was, and I suspect there still is, discrimination in Northern Ireland. The discrimination does not operate only in one direction. One of the things I found most distasteful when I became responsible to the Secretary of State of the day for appointments—and it seemed that we were junior Ministers at a time when substantial numbers of appointments had to be made following reorganisation of local government—was to find in certain important sectors—for example, professional expertise—that there were no
1258
Catholics from whom to choose. The truth is that such men did not offer themselves for certain professional posts and for other positions because they knew that there was no future for them if they did.
We in the Conservative Party have a responsibility here. After all, it concerned the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I do not blink from that responsibility. I did not blink from it when I was in Northern Ireland. I recognised that I had a special responsibility as a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Here I want to ask a direct question of which I have not given the Minister of State notice. Therefore, I shall understand if he does not wish to deal with it now. I must declare a personal, though not a pecuniary, interest. I was the chairman of the committee of trade unionist and employers, Catholic and Protestant, who produced the report which—not because of my chairmanship, but because of their work—was regarded as important, the report on ending discrimination in the private sector of employment. I am certain that it is very important, and few more hopeful signs have come out of Northern Ireland than that employer and employee, Catholic and Protestant, were prepared to move forward in this vital human sector.
Does the right hon. Gentleman still hope to introduce legislation arising from that report? If he does, does he envisage it being of such importance that it will be by way of a Bill, or will it be by way of the order procedure? I am talking of the interim period, of course.
Mr. Orme: The Government intend to bring it forward, but it will have to be in the next Session. It will be in the form of a Bill, not an order. Unfortunately, because of the fall of the Executive it is no longer possible to put the Bill through the Assembly, as we had agreed. It will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. My right hon. Friend gives it a high priority.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I welcome that. It is an important move forward. I have never had any doubts that those who will have the most difficult task in implementing the legislation are the trade union representatives. The matter will be decided down at the shop floor, where for many a year there have been per

1259
sons of one faith. In fairness to the Protestant workers, let it be said that that does not apply only on the Protestant side, although it applies there more in numerical terms and also in one particularly identifiable industry. But it will be the trade unions and trade unionists who will decide. We in this House shall therefore need to support them very fully. As a result of some of the speeches I have heard today, but only some, I feel anxious whether implementation of the legislation will be possible to achieve on the ground.
Here I should like to say a word to my Catholic friends. We are all asked to rethink our positions. I say in all friendliness that one of the positions they will have to rethink is their position in education. I am not questioning their sincerity on the matter. As a committed Anglican, I cannot, will not and do not for a moment advocate that it is right for the Churches to withdraw from education in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. But there is a rigidity about the system over there which does not apply here. I think that the inquiry by Sir John Wolfenden will be very helpful.
I accept that the problem is part of a much larger problem. I have said before in the House that if all education were integrated, Catholic children in the Ardoyne would go to the Catholic schools and be taught by Catholics, and the reverse would apply in the Shankill. Therefore, I am not advocating anything so extreme as integration, but I am asking for some movement, probably in nursery education, which would be a massive contribution by my Catholic friends.
Mr. Fitt: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that during the lifetime of the Executive the then Minister in charge of the Department of Education, Mr. Basil McIvor, with the full support of the Executive—Catholics and Protestants—took the first tentative, preliminary steps to bring about integration?
Mr. van Straubenzee: That is a helpful and valid point. I read that speech with the greatest interest. I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for Mr. McIvor. It is a great sadness that he was not able to carry on with his work. That tribute is particularly telling coming from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
1260
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) made an important point when he asked the Secretary of State not to make himself too remote from the Convention and suggested that he should not withdraw himself too completely from it. I know that it is a great mistake to draw upon past experience as though it is necessarily relevant, but it would be true to say that all parties who took part in the discussions last autumn—I am not talking about Sunningdale but before—found it helpful to have informal discussions with United Kingdom Ministers. Of course, all parties had the opportunity to take part in those discussions. Not for one moment did the parties which took part take instructions or anything of that nature. None of those taking part could ever have done so. Perhaps I may say without offence that a wide United Kingdom experience was helpful when we worked altogether on such a major problem. I take the Secretary of State's point that he does not want to interfere or dictate, but I hope that at the same time he will not be afraid to make himself available to the Convention together with his Ministers and officials, who between them have considerable expertise.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I take what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course we shall do all we can to help in the spirit of Northern Ireland playing its own part, but there is a point which we must consider, which is the purpose of debate—namely, the need for the people of Northern Ireland to stick together. To some degree the Executive was brought together from outside but the people of Northern Ireland came together themselves until the problems concerning the Executive arose. I give full praise for that. I would not have done it in any other way. As much as I want to do everything I can to assist Northern Ireland, the Province must realise that it is the people of Northern Ireland who must bear the problems.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. The right hon. Gentleman must make his judgments and I am sure that we shall rely on him to make them.
Quite a lot has been said about the famous "Irish dimension". I must say to some hon. Members who sit on this

1261
side of the House and who represent Northern Ireland constituencies that it is no good behaving as though the South did not exist. The fact is that geography has placed both the North and the South on the same island. I never realised until I went to Northern Ireland in a governmental capacity that there was a considerable amount of working together on many practical matters. I am sure that we should all be looking for further examples of that. I am glad to have the support in that of some Northern Ireland hon. Members. That, I think, is a helpful approach.
I can speak about the South with a greater freedom than can Ministers. I have no idea how they feel about the South. I have not asked them and I would not be influenced one way or the other. I say in a friendly way that the Government of the South are still not being as realistic as they should be about security on the border and for the island as a whole. Every time I think of cooperation between North and South—and I concede that it has improved—I think of Belleek. I think of that small outpost of soldiers and policemen which it is not exactly agreeable to visit from a safety point of view. It is dominated by high ground. It is outrageous that gunmen from the South can with some considerable ease—at any rate that was the position—fire on police and soldiers.
How sad it is, too, that the Secretary of State has to refer in paragraph 20 to disagreement on the vital question of extradition. The Northern Irish representatives and the United Kingdom representatives agreed, he records, that it would be right to proceed by way of a stiffened extradition. As it is, we are to make do with something less good. Never mind, it is happening.
I echo what was said about the Strasbourg hearings. What a bizarre situation it is that those proceedings should be going on when we ought to be working together in terms of security and everything else. Hon. Members have talked about the interesting experiment of a Home Guard in the South. Speaking from a strictly security point of view—I emphasise that—I can see the advantages of always having a locally raised, locally trained force employed and commissioned locally.
1262
Politics enters into it, however. Those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies must understand the bitterness felt by large numbers of law-abiding people about the B Specials. I remember, 20 years ago, my first impression of anxiety when I discovered the County Commandant of the B Specials being concerned with the Unionist Committee and attending the same dinner as myself before I went on to a Unionist meeting. The B Specials were turned, in important respects, into a political police force. They had among them most honourable men, who served regardless of politics.
If there is a reaction against the B Specials—and by Heavens there is—then the politicians have a fearful amount to answer for. I have visited in my time in Government nearly every police station in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the present Ministers keep this practice going. I could not feel more strongly than I do about the necessity for building up the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and for supporting it. I absolutely accept that it must be impartial. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East spoke of recruiting. Let it be remembered that in United Kingdom terms recruiting to the RUC is good. It is not good enough. In particular, and the constabulary is the first to admit this, it is not good enough in the terms of recruiting young Catholics. It is a tragedy, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, West, that the Executive collapsed before it was possible to introduce effective political Catholic representation.
We must remember the lesson learned from security in Northern Ireland in the past. It is that disaster came upon us when we had dual control of the security forces, when the Army was under the United Kingdom government and the police were under the Stormont Government. That was rectified. I very much hope that we shall remember that security lesson.
I have another thing to say which I can say as a result of innumerable discussions with constables, in twos or threes or in larger groups, sometimes late at night after they came in from patrol. I believe that the average man in the RUC does not want to be put back, as he would say, under a local committee. There is a pride now about being a United

1263
Kingdom force which is important in terms of morale. The RUC has been inquired into a number of times. There have been a considerable number of inquiries into it. There is a limit to the number of times we can take a plant out, look at its roots, dust it and put it back and expect it to go on growing. If this Convention is to have the power to send for evidence and to discuss with and perhaps question the chief constable, then we might be in for a yet further period of uncertainty where the Royal Ulster Constabulary is concerned. I very much hope that that situation can be avoided.
I sum it up in this way: this is a sombre debate. I do not feel optimistic but I am determined not to be pessimistic about the future of Northern Ireland. The Opposition will support, as they have before, constructive efforts to make a move forward in this direction for a people to whom we look and to whom we owe much, a sturdy and splendid people, part of the United Kingdom, part of us and deserving of our support.
9.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I should like first of all to underline a point made by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in regard to education, and the ideas he put forward, which Mr. Basil McIvor was developing in the Executive, regarding education for very small children in the nursery school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Minister of State dealing with education to look into this, so it has not been brushed aside; we are interested in it. One thing that struck me about the police force when I met the whole of the Executive of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a body of about 28 or 30 men from every part of Northern Ireland—were two points which they made to me on which they were unanimous.
First, they wanted to be an unarmed police force in the future, and secondly, they did not want to return to a position where they were at the behest of a single political party or political movement in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman was referring to United Kingdom standards in that respect, I believe that this has become firmly established among
1264
the RUC in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) says that this is not true. All I can say is that the body I met was truly representative—as were others whom I have met—and that I found that this was a general desire.
There are several points to which I wish to reply, not least some raised by the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I agree this has been an important and sombre debate. It has fluctuated a little, sometimes towards optimism, sometimes towards pessimism. I hope that the UUUC Members will now feel that their views are given full weight—they could not have been given more weight than has been given to them in this Government White Paper—but they must now expect that this implies a responsibility on their part, not only to the people they represent in Northern Ireland but to people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In my opinion people in the rest of the United Kingdom will watch the debates, the proposals and the arguments that will flow from this Convention, and I believe it is upon those things that Northern Ireland and its politicians will be judged. We were asked particularly by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who opened the debate, about Strasbourg and the Convention that is to be held, and the Irish Government's attitude towards this. Perhaps I can tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there are provisions under Article 28 (B) of the Convention for the Commission to place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of any matter placed before it on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the convention.
Her Majesty's Government believe that progress made in Northern Ireland provides a fully adequate basis for a friendly settlement. This has been made clear to the Irish Government, and we very much hope that they will be prepared to make a positive response. Success in negotiations for a friendly settlement must depend upon the attitude of the Irish Government, and I am sure they will take note of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I do not want to take that further at this stage, but I hope that the right hon.

1265
Gentleman will weigh these words carefully.
Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 1969 and 1970 certain things happened in Belfast and Derry which needed investigation? I accept the British public's support for an inquiry when there is doubt, as there was when 13 people were killed in Derry and the Lord Chief Justice had a judicial inquiry. At that time I made certain allegations, and I have signed affidavits which are involved in the Irish Government's case against the British Government. I believe that what I did was right and, if there is no fear, such a commission should inquire into the charges and discover whether or not they are right.
Mr. Orme: I shall not go into the history of this matter. I do not deny what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, but this is a very delicate matter. I hope he will read carefully what I have said to the House. We look to the future and to the proposals that are coming forward. I say that in no spirit of criticism of my hon. Friend.
Much has been said of the economic situation in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he would deal with the guerrilla festival?
Mr. Orme: I am coming to that.
On the economic aspect, the White Paper or statement which the Government will produce in the autumn will cover all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. The Government will put before the House the facts as they exist, not weighted in any way, so that they can be judged by the people of Northern Ireland against the background of the Convention. If it were felt by certain sections in Northern Ireland that UDI would be the answer to the problem, such a decision, if it were approved by the House, would have to be weighed against the economic facts.
Part 5 of the White Paper deals with finance, and paragraphs 38 and 40 cover in some detail the Government's attempts to close the gap between the standards in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Paragraph 38 spells out unemotionally and objectively the extra financial assistance which Northern Ireland, as one of
1266
the economically disadvantaged regions of the United Kingdom, receives from the more economically developed parts of the country. This is not the first time that these figures have been set out so that the people of Ulster should know the facts. I want to draw attention to the broader economic significance of the United Kingdom financial assistance which is important to the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland. We do not mean by economics, cold statistics contained in a White Paper. We speak about the very livelihood of the people in Northern Ireland.
As Minister responsible for commerce and manpower, I grapple with problems of major consequence to Northern Ireland, such as the Harland and Wolff shipyard and Hughes Bakery in Belfast. If those problems are to be resolved the money will have to come from the rest United Kingdom. Those facts should be clearly known and set out before people in Northern Ireland.
The difference between total expenditure in Northern Ireland and the total contribution towards financing that expenditure coming from Northern Ireland sources—the rates and taxes paid by the people of Northern Ireland—represent a straight addition to the Northern Ireland gross domestic product of perhaps one-quarter. There is nothing to be ashamed of in this. The essential purpose of the Government's regional policy is to redistribute income from the richer to the poorer sections of the country. But it follows that without such an addition Northern Ireland would be poorer, employment opportunities would be fewer, and public and private standards would be lower. The fact that about something like one-quarter of Northern Ireland's GDP consists of a transfer of resources from Great Britain is but one aspect of the complex economic, commercial and financial relations which are such a feature of the British dimension of Northern Ireland affairs.
Currently, Ministers in Northern Ireland are under pressure, day in day out, for more financial expenditure in different parts of the country. We must now argue for this against the economic situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must justify this to the Government. Present Ministers are fighting desperately

1267
hard to create a solid economic and financial base in Northern Ireland because we know that that is essential if we are to have real stability.
People in Northern Ireland, not least the elected Members, should realise the problems we must argue about with our own Government colleagues in respect of priorities. Therefore, if people do not take seriously the proposals and suggestions put forward in the White Paper our job will become almost impossible, not just more difficult. These points should be taken into account.
The recent UWC action has created further problems for the Government. One of these is that the agricultural base is very wide compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Its efficiency and worthwhile productivity, which the Government acknowledge, have been commented on this afternoon. About 9·3 per cent. of workers in Northern Ireland are employed in agriculture. A past Minister of Agriculture is present at this moment. I do not know whether he will ever be a future Minister; we shall have to wait and see.
The agricultural base in the rest of the United Kingdom totals approximately 3·1 per cent. That is a very wide gap. It shows the narrow economic base now existing in Northern Ireland. It is essential that that economic base is broadened. That is why the discussion about Harland and Wolff is vital to Northern Ireland and its future. Some members of the UUUC have been to see me about those problems. We have discussed them. I hope they understand their importance and urgency.
When we discussed these problems the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the trade unions and the shop stewards' movement in Northern Ireland. The trade union movement in Northern Ireland is one of the best in the United Kingdom. Its trade union leadership and many of its shop stewards compare favourably with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Since the disastrous and divisive UWC action the Government have taken positive steps to consult trade union leaders. I recently chaired a meeting attended by every full-time official in Northern Ireland, which was addressed by my right
1268
hon. Friend. Continual meetings are being held with shop stewards, not least in shipbuilding and other crucial industries. The Government are working with the official union movement, which is such an excellent base. The British labour movement should not neglect this aspect because its assistance would be extremely welcome.
I want to say something about the resettlement scheme for detainees. My right hon. Friend announced today a small number of releases of detainees from the Maze, which he hopes to maintain over coming weeks. Seven people were released today, and this will be an on-going process. The Government want to make it clear to some people outside that it could go on indefinitely, if we got some co-operation, and if violence diminishes. I hope that this message goes clearly to those who often make the greatest noise about detention but who help to maintain it by continuing the violence.
The House will remember that we discussed the possibility of a sponsorship scheme to assist resettlement. Upon examination, we found that that was not a practical proposition and we have not pursued it. We have developed a much broader approach to resettlement after studying various aspects of the problem. Government agencies have been alerted to the part that they can play and the Government have undertaken to give financial assistance to independent work in this area, up to a total of £20,000 in this financial year.
The principal organisation which will undertake this work is the Resettlement Association (Northern Ireland). I want to make it clear that this association represents both communities and is completely independent of the Government. It is a private and independent body, which recognises the particular problems facing men released from detention and is concerned to help. It will appoint field workers, who will assess the position in their various communities.
I hope that hon. Members will not ask me how the association will work, because this is not under the control of the Government. I would ask them to ask the body itself, which is independent. If we pursued this process in any other way, it might be counter-productive. This

1269
body is autonomous, and outside the Government's control.
Mr. McNamara: What the Minister has said is very important, but he mentioned £20,000, which works out at about £33 per detainee. Is that sufficient for the work envisaged?
Mr. Orme: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. No money will be paid to detainees personally. This is a pilot scheme—[Interruption.] If it is not enough, the Resettlement Association can say so. I emphasise that we want to ensure as little governmental interference as possible.
Mr. Dalyell: I welcome the start made by my right hon. Friend, but has it been made clear to those who are leaving the Maze that they may not come out if they misbehave themselves?
Mr. Orme: One cannot lecture detainees. That is why the sponsorship scheme was dropped. When they leave the Maze—and we know that a number were released today—we know that they will be free. The Resettlement Association will be able to give assistance if it is required. The detainees will have to ask for it, and in that way they will be independent. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that if there were any form of compulsion, or if the detainees were required to report, it would destroy the whole system. I hope that the House will give the scheme its blessing, so that the Resettlement Association may be able to carry out the work for which it is responsible.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In regard to the people who have been released, can the Minister say how long they were detained and what was the nature of the suspicion under which they were held?
Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was not in a position to give that information at present. It is up to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to raise those matters in other ways, possibly by Questions. When the names of the detainees released today become known it will be observed that they are balanced between the two communities—Catholic and Protestant.
1270
I turn to the subject of the festival, about which questions have been asked. The Government do not go out of their way to welcome these events. There is a limit to the Government's power, but continued publicity only enhances the existence of these bodies and organisations. The official Sinn Fein which organises the event is no longer a proscribed organisation, and as my noble Friend said in the House of Lords on 17th June, it is not proposed to alter the law to prevent an expression of view, provided that there is no breach of existing law. It was made clear that Her Majesty's Government would not extend tolerance of political views to the criminal terrorist, and that Her Majesty's Government would take all steps in their power to ensure that people who had committed terrorist crimes did not enter the United Kingdom for any purpose, and to prevent public disorders arising from meetings, marches and demonstrations. That is the Government's position. We do not want to take a sledge hammer to crack a nut. We hope that these steps will not be necessary, but if they are, the security forces will be in a position to act.
I was asked a number of questions about the Convention. It may be useful to give some information before Monday's debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Newfoundland Convention. Our proposals were not based on that convention, but there are a number of similarities in the convention introduced by the Attlee Government. I was asked about referenda. The Government have taken power to hold referenda, if necessary. The questions arising from the Convention can be put in the form of referenda, but before this can be done it will require the approval of this House. The Government may also ask their own questions in the form of referenda, irrespective of what comes out of the Convention. Powers in this respect remain under the Bill.
It is of note, historically, that in the Newfoundland situation three questions were asked, two arising from the Convention and one from the British Government. The question from the British Government was the one finally accepted by the electorate in a referendum, not the two questions from the Convention itself.

1271
That was after two years of Convention work.
We have heard arguments and an exchange of views in the debate about the Irish dimension and power sharing. My right hon. Friend has not in any way restricted the Convention in what it may or may not discuss, but it cannot meet in isolation. It must take account of paragraph 45 of the White Paper which basically states that the standards that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom must apply in Northern Ireland. Frankly, I cannot see the House accepting anything that does not measure up to these to note that no one is now against power standards. Arguments have gone on about power sharing, and it is interesting, but everyone has a different interpretation of what it means. It is not a coalition; it is a distinct form of government for Northern Ireland. It is, I hope, a prerequisite to forming normal political intercourse in Northern Ireland, based upon economic and social grounds.
Finally, I come to the question of elections. There has been pressure in the debate, not least from the right hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West), for early elections. It is strange that when my right hon. Friend and I are in Northern Ireland we are consistently being told otherwise. We have had
1272
it from the UWC, we have had it at the weekend from Mr. Harry Murray—who, I see, is not now very popular with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East—and we have had it from Mr. Glen Barr and many other people. They say that they want time particularly for the Protestant working class to organise and present itself to the electorate in a form more acceptable and more representative of the people. One gentleman, whose credentials are impeccable in the Protestant community told me: "We do not want early elections, Mr. Orme, because we do not want to see the same flag-waving politicians returned to this new Convention." He did not mention any names, and I did not have the temerity to ask him.
My right hon. Friend will decide at the appropriate moment when the elections are to take place. They will 'lot take place in the immediate or near future. I believe that Northern Ireland needs a breathing space and that the White Paper gives it an opportunity. Many people in the House have demanded this opportunity; they have now got it, and it is their responsibility to make it work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution (Command Paper No. 5675).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
10.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 is on the statute book because of the emergency that existed in Northern Ireland at that time. When the Bill was being debated we did not deny the then Government a Second Reading, although we had criticisms and doubts about it, because we recognised that grave security problems required grave remedies.
However, as I explained to the House on 4th April after we had taken office, it was our wish to make changes in the content of the Act, but we could not be ready with the necessary legislation before the Act was due to lapse. As the House knows, I have appointed a committee under Lord Gardiner to examine the workings of the Act, but it is only right in the interim that we should justify the decision to renew the Act for a further period without amendment.
The Act makes emergency provisions and is by its nature temporary, to cover the period of an emergency. If its provisions are to be renewed, clearly it is necessary to demonstrate that the emergency continues in force. I think it unlikely that any hon. Member, especially from Northern Ireland, would dispute the contention of the Government that an emergency exists in Northern Ireland at the present time. The harsh facts speak for themselves. At the present time, approximately 15,000 soldiers are serving in Northern Ireland on security duties. In only the past three months, 178 bombs were exploded by terrorists and there were 909 shooting incidents, 581 involving the security forces. Six soldiers, five policemen and 35 civilians were killed. In addition, 67 soldiers, 21 policemen and 458 civilians were injured and treated in hospital as a result of terrorist activity.
During this three-month period, 379 persons were charged with security
1274
offences in the courts and 138 detained under interim custody orders.
Terrorists have exploited the "proxy driver" method of delivering bombs wherein innocent people are made to plant bombs against threats to members of their families held hostage for the purpose. As a result, very serious damage has been done to city and town centres and the life of communities seriously disrupted. Young people and children were caught in the act of planting bombs, and women and girls have planted incendiary devices in shops and other busy commercial premises causing many shops to be burnt out. Attacks against security forces in rural and border areas through ambush, culvert mines and other means have continued.
In this respect—and I have no doubt that it was done by Ministers in the previous administration—shortly after arriving in Northern Ireland I walked through the middle of Belfast after it had been bombed. All I can say to those who think that this is convincing the people of Belfast that they want a united Ireland is that I wish that I had a recording of the language that was used and the description applied to their fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went to Bangor and down into Armagh, because it was part of a piece. At the same time, I was down in Newton Butler. To see what was left of that village was quite an experience.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those who visit the Province from time to time will agree with his analysis? It is a terrible catalogue of disaster and tragedy. But is he saying that the Emergency Provisions Act, therefore, has not worked and that this is an argument for doing something else?
Mr. Rees: I know that many people who visit the Province do not support the Government's view. I know also that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these matters. But I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument. I have to recognise certain vital facts. Intimidation remains an ugly cancer in

1275
Northern Ireland and witnesses will not appear in court.
I asked for the figures of recent dates because it came to my notice that certain things had happened. Since 11th June—about a month—there have been 12 punishment shootings by terrorist organisations, nearly all by knee-capping, which is a vicious process of shooting through the knees with the intention of laming the victim for life. That is in a month. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that witnesses will not come forward unless their identities are concealed, and, even if this is guaranteed, only a very brave man will do more than give information to the police.
It is a fact of life that there is intimidation. There was intimidation during the Ulster workers' strike, as we know from people who contacted us. Information given to the police by a witness will, all too often, disclose the identity of that witness even if he were not to appear. In addition, information obtained by questioning a terrorist will ail too often disclose his identity to other terrorists. Such disclosure can be a death warrant.
Let me give but one example—the worst that I could find. Last November terrorists thought that a 15-year old boy with a mental age of five had passed information to the security forces. He was abducted from a training home by an armed terrorist and murdered in cold blood.
Given these facts, if terrorists are to be prevented from roaming the streets, there must be a procedure whereby a witness's presence does not disclose his identity and in which evidence given by the security forces does not disclose his identity.
Intimidation, including intimidation of families, exists on a terrible scale in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may give some examples of cases where, but for the intimidation of witnesses, criminal charges would have been brought but detention had to be resorted to. I say to the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) that I signed orders in most, not all, of those cases because they were in my time, and I signed them on the advice of the security forces. It was my right to say "No". Perhaps I may give some very
1276
interesting examples including some in recent weeks.
There were the Bloody Friday atrocities on 21st July 1972 when bombs exploded in Belfast killing seven soldiers and nine civilians and injuring more than 100 civilians. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall seeing on television the bits of people on the sidewalk being shovelled up into bags. Some of the people who committed that outrage were detained.
There were the infamous Antrim Road murders on 23rd March 1973 when three Army NCOs were lured to a flat on the Antrim Road and there callously shot. Detention was resorted to.
There was the Divis Flats explosive device detonated as some soldiers patrolled the flats. Two soldiers were killed and two were seriously wounded, one being blinded in both eyes and the other in one. Detention was resorted to.
There was a rocket attack on Rosemount police station, Londonderry, on 14th November 1973. One of the three rockets fired in the late afternoon missed the police station and hit a nearby school.
There were the Rathcoole murders in North Belfast when four gunmen entered a workmen's hut, ordered Protestant workers to kneel, and then machine-gunned the remaining five workers, instantly killing two. That was on 31st January 1974. Detention was resorted to.
There were the murders at the Abbey meat factory where five workmen were machine-gunned as they went to work on 11th February 1974. One died and four were wounded.
There was the murder of Major Farrell, an Army recruiting officer, as he took his dog for a walk on 23rd March.
There was the Grand Central Hotel bombing on 28th March when a hijacked vehicle containing up to 500 1b. of explosives totally disrupted life in the centre of Belfast and caused extensive damage to shops and premises in Royal Avenue and 24 civilian casualties.
There was the Ballyduff shooting when a burst of automatic fire was directed into another work hut in Glengormley, killing two and injuring five others on 7th May. I signed interim custory orders.
In addition, there are numerous terrorists in detention in Northern Ireland

1277
merely because witnesses refuse to come forward and give evidence in court. For example, there are snipers in detention, one who shot dead three soldiers in less than two months; bombers who completely destroyed the GPO sorting office in Londonderry, and others who have bombed and burnt the centres of Londonderry and other towns from Lisburn to Strabane; gunmen who shot down three soldiers, killing one, in the very centre of Belfast on 13th March 1974, and made good their escape through a church, and others who only recently shot dead two police constables whilst they were on duty at the junction of Finaghy Road and the Upper Lisburn Road. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows very well the case involving the escape through a church.
I could go further. There have been ICOs for crimes on both sides of the border. These facts of death convince me that the existing detention procedure must be maintained until Lord Gardiner and his colleagues have had an opportunity to consider alternative methods of dealing with the problem. Would that all could be dealt with through the normal processes of the courts.
The commissioners, who have to decide whether detention orders are to be made, are required to have had experience as a judge, barrister, advocate or solicitor for at least 10 years in the United Kingdom. In practice, many are judges and others are recorders or deputy judges. They are persons with a wide experience of assessing evidence. Respondents may use solicitors and counsel to represent their interests. A commissioner may sign a detention order only if he is satisfied not only of the person's involvement in terrorism but also that the detention is necessary for the protection of the public. There is an appeal tribunal of experienced judges. There is a mandatory review system after one year, and subsequently at six-monthly intervals, by the commissioners. There is a power for the Secretary of State to refer persons for review at other times, and a power for the Secretary of State to direct executive releases. There is a problem which I recognise over delays in hearings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will talk on this.
1278
At this point I wish to expand the announcement I made earlier today. The previous administration, as an earnest of their commitment to phase out detention, made an executive release of 65 detainees before Christmas which we fully supported. I have heard people say to me in Northern Ireland that it was the wrong 65, and so on. But 65 releases were made. Since that time there have also been a large number of releases by the commissioners within the judicial procedures laid down by the Act. The commissioners have this year, since 1st January, released in all 131 detainees—48 on first hearing and 83 on reviews.
I have now decided that the time is ripe to make a start with further executive releases. The House will realise the risks involved in such action before violence has ended. I have, therefore, decided that the initial number will be modest and spread over a period of time—a beginning which, if there is a response, can go on. If as a result of releasing a very small number today the middle of Belfast is bombed tomorrow night, or Strabane, and in a big way, that will be the answer to what I admit is only an earnest of intention.
Detention can be brought to an end only when violence is checked. Those who indulge in violence have it in their hands to bring it to an end. Indeed, one would hope that they would now appreciate that there is much to be gained in seeking their aims by political means. It is our hope that all in Northern Ireland, as we said in the White Paper, would participate in the political processes. It would be tragic if those now renouncing violence came from only one side of the divide. An end to violence could end detention, irrespective of the legislation.
Mr. Arthur Latham: I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has been saying. I understand that the Attorney-General will be dealing with the question of delays. But does it mean that where the commissioners ordered the release of 48 detainees on first hearing, they were in effect indicating that the advice on which my right hon. Friend acted, from the security forces, was perhaps not good advice? Does he not appreciate that this is one of the objections that many of us had in principle to the original

1279
legislation, and still have? What he has to be satisfied about is not just the lurid situation that he has painted so vividly but whether this measure, first, has the effect that it is intended to have and, secondly, does not carry with it the very serious danger of the wrong people being imprisoned by executive action, and very often for much more than 28 days.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. The evidence is put to me in the first instance and I decide whether they shall go before the commissioners. In 48 hours the decision is reached whether they should be released, and that is the point of having the commissioners.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think the Secretary of State intends to mislead the House, hut is not the procedure that he signs an interim custody order and then within 28 days the chief constable signs an order which keeps the man inside to wait to go before the commissioners?
Mr. Rees: I hope that I am not misleading my hon. Friend. In the first instance I sign the ICO.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Accepting the force of the argument advanced by the Minister of State half an hour ago that one should not lecture ex-detainees, does the Secretary of State sympathise with the argument recently put by both extreme sides that anyone who was picked up and then let out and was subsequently had up on a serious crime—say burning Belfast or something like that—should then get a fairly ferocious punishment? That would be acceptable to both sides.
Mr. Rees: If the next time round the evidence was such that one could put the offence through a normal court, I am sure that the fact would be taken into account, but the point is that it depends on how soon afterwards the offence takes place. I have had a number of these cases. The question if someone was the subject of an ICO some time back is how far that should be taken into account at a later stage. There are all sorts of legal difficulties. The point has been put to me by members of the minority community as justification for releasing people. The problem is that if I experiment in this
1280
way and a soldier is shot, do I say to him, "Hard luck chum, I was trying it out to see whether it worked"? That is not "on" for me as a way of dealing with the situation.
Let no one be in any doubt that a ready response would be forthcoming from the Government if there were an end to violence. As a first step in the Government's policy of phasing out detention I have today ordered the release of seven detainees, and I hope to make further regular releases if the security situation permits. I intend to operate executive releases in parallel with the provision in the Act under which a detainee's case is reviewed by a commissioner at regular intervals after he has been detained. I shall examine the cases of detainees which will shortly be coming up for review and I shall consider the release in the light of the security situation. The others will proceed before the commission in the normal way. I shall continue to take fully into account the views and advice of the security forces.
When a detainee is released, all the normal welfare facilities in Northern Ireland will be available to him. We recognise the special difficulty the detainee will face. It is essential that men should not drift back into terrorism because of social and domestic problems. In addition, the Government are prepared to provide limited funds to independent organisations working in this field. Inevitably there will be risks in letting out people where independent commissioners have been satisfied that they have been involved in terrorism. Their release does not give them licence to return to violence with impunity. If the security situation deteriorates, the executive releases will stop.
I repeat that it is the men of violence who are keeping people in detention. It is the Provisional IRA who can contribute most by phasing it out, but Protestant para-military forces are involved. If they respond, so will the Government. It is our wish to phase detention out, and it can be phased out in the context of violence ceasing. We have shown an earnest of our intention. If the violence stops, we can release detainees. That would also lead to the wider question which I raised earlier in the day of the rôle of the Army.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We all admit that it is a very serious matter we are handling tonight. One point that disturbs some of us on this side of the House is this: is it fair, because the IRA starts a campaign after releases, to blame the people the right hon. Gentleman has released? Surely that is part of their plan. The Secretary of State could release, say, seven men and tonight there could be bombings. It does not necessarily mean that it is their responsibility. I often think that the IRA has a vested interest, to keep the campaign going, in keeping internment.
Mr. Rees: With the numbers who are inside, and the largish numbers who have come out in a recent period, the argument about releasing people from Long Kesh, Crumlin and Derry is not that it is the seven who are responsible. The point is that, given the evidence that has put people inside, I am not prepared to put the security forces at risk. I try to go out with the soldiers once a week. It concentrates the mind. While the violence exists, if there is no Act the Army comes out straight away as far as I am concerned. I am not prepared to put people's lives at risk in this way.
It is not only the Government but those involved in violence who must show an earnest of intent. Although there are some people in both parts of the community who, I believe, are politically motivated, it is the sectarian murders that worry me most. People have deep inside them a desire to kill somebody from the other political faith. [An HON. MEMBER: "Religious faith."] Call it religious, call it what one will, but I do not believe that they are politically motivated, whatever they may say when they eventually come to be made the subject of interim custody orders or dealt with through the courts. They then say that they are political prisoners. I do not deny that some people are politically motivated. I am not giving numbers. But some people would haunt Northern Ireland for years if peace were to break out tomorrow. Stories come to me or my right hon. Friend in the mornings of Protestant girls and Catholic girls and, sadly, of the sectarian murders.
I am not taking issue with anyone about the IRA's having committed the largest number of crimes against the com
1282
munity as a whole. We are talking about sectarian murders, of people being killed because of their religion. There have been over 200 such killings, the majority of which are Protestants killing Catholics.
A recurrent theme throughout my speech so far has been the Gardiner Committee. I should like to close by discussing this committee in more detail. As I have said, the Government when in Opposition had grave doubts about this Act. We considered that the terms of reference of the Commission chaired by Lord Diplock, on which the Act was based, were too narrow and restrictive. We have always felt that emergency legislation such as this should have been dealt with in conjunction with an examination of human rights and civil liberties.
Consequently, the House may recall, the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Gardiner was set up with much wider terms of reference. They were to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations.
That is consistent with the view that I expressed on behalf of the Opposition when I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I made it clear then that, given violence in Northern Ireland, the community had the right to take special action to deal with murder and violent crime. I called in aid the European Convention on Human Rights which in Article 15 recognises the right of society to take special action in this respect by derogation. The convention recognises that in modern society there are those who will seek to achieve their political ends by military means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West may recall that I have suggested to the SDLP the need for a Bill of Rights to be considered by a commission of eminent lawyers. I then considered that a Commonwealth lawyer should be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will remember that I put to him that the commission should also consider

1283
the maintenance of the rule of law in circumstances such as those that have prevailed in Northern Ireland in recent years. He may remember receiving a letter from me to that effect.
The House will notice the link between the concern that I expressed on that occation and the passage in the terms of reference of the Gardiner Committee which refers to the preservation of civil liberties and human rights. One of the first things that I did when taking up office and setting up the committee was to act on the advice that I had given the previous Government when in Opposition, which was something that I had always thought it necessary to do. I made it clear to Lord Gardiner that the Government wished him to interpret his terms of reference in the widest sense. That the right hon. and noble Lord has agreed to do.
The committee has already met and issued a general invitation for evidence to be submitted to it. I trust that any individuals or organisations who wish to contribute to the coming debate on enforcing law and order in Northern Ireland whilst preserving civil liberties and human rights will avail themselves of that opportunity. The committee will be meeting regularly over the next few months both in London and in Northern Ireland. It will be treating the task as a matter of extreme urgency.
It is necessary to ask the House to renew the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. It is the hope of the Government that we shall be able to present new legislation in the not too-distant future, based on the report of Lord Gardiner's Committee, which will provide powers to cope with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland while maintaining to the maximum extent practicable the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland.
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. I say to the House that without such legislation the security forces cannot operate. I repeat, if that legislation is not passed then I will not order a soldier to go out into the streets of
1284
Belfast. What matters, irrespective of legislation, is that the violence shall cease.
There is a split between the two wings of the IRA—namely, the Provisional IRA and the official IRA. They argue as to the effect of the bombings and killings as they put it, and as I would put it, in certain parts of Northern Ireland and on working-class people elsewhere. We have given an earnest of intention and we require back an earnest of intention. If that is forthcoming it will be possible to phase out detention. I offer that in the same spirit as the Government have offered to Northern Ireland the chance to work together to find a political solution to the problem which has haunted Ireland for many years, and particularly for the past 50 years.
As I have said today, we are considering policing again not in the sense of Hunt and of picking up the plant in the way that was suggested, very understandingly, by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), but of finding a way of returning to normal policing. We have asked the Army to do an impossible job. In the meantime the legal way forward is for the House to await Gardiner. The real way out is to phase out detention. I have today speeded that process by starting the process again from an executive point of view. It is for others to respond.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: No one who listened to what my right hon. Friend had to say in his long catalogue of horrible crimes could fail to be impressed by the enormity of the situation and its very dreadfulness. Therefore, in challenging my right hon. Friend I am not challenging him in the sense of his desire to do well in Northern Ireland. I do not mean that in a political sense but in a community sense. I am not challenging either his bona fides or his good intentions, or those of the Minister of State.
What I am challenging is the whole issue whether his judgment is correct in this situation. This is what the argument is about. It concerns objectives and ways of achieving them. In an earlier debate the Minister of State thought that I was trying to make a cheap point when I spoke in terms of a grant of £33 per

1285
detainee. My right hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that in a resettlement sense. I was asking whether £20,000 was enough for that task. I am not trying to score points at the expense of anyone.
We spent nearly six weeks in Opposition—from 7th May to 25th June—examining and probing the terms contained in this measure which we are being asked to renew. Our discussions in Committee occupied 669 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were 20 Divisions, many of which were decided by the casting vote of the Chair. We all remember the sense of expectancy as we waited to see which way it would go. We were dealing with matters such as juries.
This is not an idle debate. A number of distinguished Members now holding important offices—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Minister of State—voted on those many issues. It is right to ask why, in the time the Government have been in power, they have not done something more positive.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a technical point. The Government have been in office for four months. If I had started on the first day I took office and brought forward a Bill with a number of clauses it could not have got through the legislative processes in time.
Mr. McNamara: We are to debate another constitution for Northern Ireland on Monday. My right hon. Friend seems to forget that there is a section in the Act we are debating which enables us to drop parts of it. He has failed to take the opportunity to do this. If, as a earnest of the Government's intentions, they had been prepared to drop some sections—not directly concerned with internment—we would have been able to see which way things were going. The advice seems to have been that we must leave all this to Lord Gardiner. As I said to my right hon. Friend in the House last week, we are shuffling off responsibility, just as the Opposition shuffled off responsibility to Lord Diplock, because we are not prepared to take some of the decisions which should have been taken.
We are not talking just about detention. We are talking about trial without jury,
1286
on which there was a close vote in Committee. We are talking about trial before a single judge, which was decided in Committee by the Chairman's casting vote. We are talking about changing the onus of proof in certain cases, in particular in possession cases. We are talking about the admissibility of written statements ill evidence, the denial of the hearsay rule. I could go through quotation after quotation from speeches made by Labour Front Bench spokesmen on that occasion—many of whom are on the Government Front Bench now—on issue after issue, not concerned with internment, in which my right hon. Friends said that what we were doing was wrong.
I come to the question of internment—or detention as it is now politely known. My right hon. Friend will recall that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends divided the House on the question of internment when Mr. Faulkner first introduced it. When internment was being mooted early that August, I and some of my hon. Friends gave warnings about what would happen. The onus is upon my right hon. Friend to show that internment has succeeded.
I know that that is a negative argument and that one can never show what would have happened if those people had not been interned. But there have been more people, including British soldiers, killed, wounded and maimed, and there has been more property destroyed, since internment was introduced than there was before.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend is using a negative argument. I visited Long Kesh when there were 1,200 internees there under the Special Powers Act. I thought at the time—and still think—that that was a great mistake. Changes have been made since then. Large numbers of internees were released by the Executive and by the previous administration, and the numbers went down. If the Act has weaknesses, as it has—and I will not go into the technicalities—is it the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that I should turn the 600 internees out on to the streets?
Mr. McNamara: I am coming to that. I am not trying to dodge that question. It is a point which I have consistently put in another capacity to people who have come before the House and in Committee

1287
upstairs asking for an end to detention. That is a political judgment.
I want to turn to the point which was made eloquently in Committee and which can be summed up in this way: there may well be a case for detention or a case for diluted justice, but there is not a case for both. My right hon. Friend—and I use the expression "my right hon. Friend" to mean the Government—is maintaining both those positions. This I find very hard to understand. This is why I say we are shuffling off the responsibility.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is the most important way of discussing what my right hon. Friend and I deal with daily. I take my hon. Friend's point. Diluted justice comes within the sphere of my right hon. Friend and detention comes within mine. The more one could deal with cases under normal methods of justice the better.
Would my hon. Friend not agree, on the question of non-jury trial, that because of intimidation it may be necessary to have some limitation on normal justice, if not to the extent provided for in the Bill?
Mr. McNamara: I do not accept that. My right hon. Friend gave a catalogue of the people he has caused to be detained. Yet he has said that these people will be released if violence ends. The logic of that argument is that if one shoots a British soldier one will be detained, but if one shoots a British soldier and is convicted, one must serve the sentence. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say that the convicted prisoners will be offered some sort of amnesty. We know there are people who want that. But my right hon. Friend will come to the gravamen of the argument, which is, "Faced with this situation, do I open the gates tomorrow and say All right, boys, you may go'"? Is my right hon. Friend saying, "You are in there indefinitely until you are carried out in a box"? That is the other side of my right hon. Friend's argument. At some time he will let those men out. Or will he not let them out until they leave in a box? That is the logic of the case. My right hon. Friend must answer that question.
We come back to the question of judgment. That is what it amounts to. It is my judgment that as a result of internment certain things have arisen and will continue. The first is the fact that
1288
we have created a graduate school for terrorists on both sides of this divide. Secondly, one only increases the sense of grievance of people inside if their release is held up subject to the actions of people outside who they cannot always influence.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Some months ago I met leaders of the compounds at Long Kesh and the Maze. My hon. Friend may recall the argument put to me that those people regarded themselves as prisoners of war. I have heard that opinion expressed on many occasions.
Mr. McNamara: The Home Secretary, as he then was, said that we were at war with the IRA. He gave these men a status which in many ways they do not deserve. One is in an even more difficult position. They are liable to be called prisoners of war. They will acquire a status when the war is over.
My right hon. Friend cannot have it all ways. He has visited the children's wing in the Crumlin. He has seen young people there waiting to be allocated to various prisons, training schools and Borstals. Was the terrible thing said to him that was said to me by one person, that he wanted to go to Long Kesh because there he would be given special category status? This is what internment has led to.
A sense of grievance remains in the minority population and it is beginning to grow. My right hon. Friend will 'e now from his correspondence with the Unionists, as I know because it was said to me by the UWC, that it is maintained that people picked up on the street were only trade unionists doing their job. Disaffection is spreading in both communities.
The process started with a political gesture by Mr. Faulkner, who misconceived the situation on the basis of what had happened between 1956 and 1962. No matter how we change the names of the prisoners and the name of the system under which they are held, we still have internment. We therefore give an excuse to extremists on either side not to sit down and talk to their political representatives.
Mr. Rees: May I come to the basic point which I have to decide? Given the fault in the beginning—for which neither side of this House has responsibility—would my hon. Friend release

1289
the 600 on to the streets and at the same time leave the Army there? That is the question that I have to answer—and I am, not begging, the question the other way round. I would do the one but I would not keep the Army there one moment in that situation, and if the Army were not there I believe that there would be problems. I would not allow soldiers to be there without protection of some sort. It could not be. I have to take that decision. My hon. Friend has to assume that he is taking it and give me the right answer.
Mr. McNamara: I must therefore ask my right hon. Friend which part of the Act he thinks will protect the Army. In all the things that I have said to my right hon. Friend, I have never said that the Army should lose the right to arrest and to detain for four hours, although that causes many grievances in the communities. Is it detention, trial without jury or the alteration of the onus of proof to which my right hon. Friend refers?
Mr. Rees: I tell my hon. Friend frankly, having operated this Act, that given the situation there and no sign of the response of a reduction in violence, I am referring to powers, however modified—there may be a case for that—of detention. I do not believe that the Army could stay there without some powers of that kind. I say that having operated the system and dealing with each case firmly myself.
Mr. McNamara: I accept that that is my right hon. Friend's judgment. What I am entitled to say is that the Army could operate from 1968 to 1971 without internment and operated with far less violence than was produced by the introduction of internment.
Here is an Act which we are being asked to renew, which contains many faults, some of which could be improved by merely dropping some provisions. There is a whole series of social and political reasons against detention.
We also have what I regard as a lack of honesty within the detention procedures. If I as Secretary of State detain a man because I regard him as dangerous, I do not pass it on to the chief constable or to commissioners or to appeal because that brings the whole law into disrepute. There are a host of arguments political,
1290
judicial and practical as to why we should not renew the order. I do not believe that we should renew it.
10.50 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate is of the utmost importance to all the people of Northern Ireland because it affects both communities. I have made my position absolutely clear on this matter, but let me tell the House what worries me. We have had put before the House some of the dark and terrible realities of the Northern Ireland situation. We have heard about the monstrous atrocities carried out by the terrorist organisations—and, in the main, by the Irish Republican Army.
In vivid language—language which must have brought this House to the stark realities of the dark shadow that lies across Northern Ireland—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having catalogued these terrible crimes, said that he had signed detention orders. He went on to say that if there were a response he would consider further releases. In other words, he made the point that if the violence came to an end, eventually all these people would be released. He was suggesting that people who had committed dastardly acts would escape without any punishment whatever.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: If it had been possible to carry out these proceedings through the normal courts of law, the situation would be different, but what happens if there are no normal processes of law? What the hon. Gentleman says does not weaken my argument but strengthens it. He talks of going through the normal process of law, but that assumes that society is normal.
Rev. Ian Paisley: But the process of law must be exhausted first. I agree that in an emergency terrorist situation special powers must be made available, but the commissioners' hearings have become an absolute farce. It must be emphasised that there must be a respect for the law. If the judicial process is seen to have become the farce it now is, there can be no respect for the judicial system.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I am saying by citing the case of a certain prisoner—whose name I will not mention because of his family—who in the Northern Ireland High Court was told by the

1291
Lord Chief Justice that his word could not be taken since he was regarded as totally unreliable. The Lord Chief Justice told him that he could not accept his evidence. Yet on that person's evidence a man is in Long Kesh tonight.
When the man's evidence was presented before one of the commissioners, the counsel who pleaded his case pointed out to the commissioner what had been said about the man in the High Court action in Northern Ireland, and the commissioner refused to take his evidence. He said, "I cannot accept this witness as a credible witness. I will expunge from the record what he said." But another commissioner took a different attitude and said that he was prepared to accept that unreliable witness. Consequently, there is tonight a man detained in Long Kesh. How does that man feel towards society? That man can have no respect for the judicial system. Northern Ireland is a small place and, what is more, people are inter-related and inter-married. They are all affected when one of the family is detained.
We could have a long debate tonight about the very structure of Long Kesh and about things which go against the grain of any human being. Nobody knows more than I do that there are terrible difficulties.
However, I want to return to the time when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland and to say that it was introduced in the wrong manner. The Apprentice Boys of Derry were banned from marching—banned to please the Roman Catholics—and the Roman Catholics were interned by Mr. Faulkner to please the Protestants. A country cannot be run by placating one side and then placating the other. But it was in those circumstances that internment was introduced. Then came this Act. We all know what happened upstairs. The Tory Whip was annoyed with me because I was appointed by the Tory Party at that time to sit on the Committee, but I did not vote in the way which might have been expected of me because I had strong views about certain parts of the Act.
The argument tonight has tended to pinpoint detention, but there are other matters in the Act of which the House should take cognisance. When we destroyed or took away trial by jury in
1292
Northern Ireland we helped weaken the people's respect for the judiciary. I want to put on record that I resented the way in which the Protestant community was slandered upstairs by the then Attorney-General who said that the Protestant community jurymen could not be relied on to do their duty. Jurymen come from a particular part of the community; not everybody serves on a jury. There is a property qualification. Jurymen have a stake in the community.
I made a protest about this matter in the Committee. I have today been refreshing my memory about those protracted committee meetings upstairs. I would like to see the jury system of trials restored in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
It has been said that we cannot have a jury system because of intimidation, but I suggest that it is easy to get at a single judge—and judges have been shot at in Northern Ireland—and it is easy to get at witnesses, because witnesses become known, but that it is harder to get at juries because juries are picked, and in Northern Ireland they are picked by a long elimination process. It is not so easy to get at juries. The argument against juries has never been properly established. We asked the previous Attorney-General questions about juries. We have asked whether there have been perverted juries, and what was the extent of their perversion. We have a situation where, in discussing this Act, we are discussing many other matters than detention.
There is one question which I want to put to the Secretary of State. Has this Act worked? Are we defeating terrorists? Every morning, people in Northern Ireland wake up and listen to the early morning news, which is always a sad catalogue of what has happened during the night. I do not think that this Act as an instrument is effective in the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I readily admit that some special powers are necessary in a situation of this kind, but I believe that a better measure could be developed than this one.
I come back to the commissioners. A commissioner hears a case and signs an order to detain a man. The man then goes before other commissioners on appeal, and he is still detained. That being the case, how can the Secretary of

1293
State suddenly decide that the man can be let out? This has happened. Men have had hearings before commissioners, have appealed and lost, and then as a result of executive action they have been released. I wonder about the evidence that was presented to the commissioners and how it could have changed suddenly so that the Secretary of State was able to let the men out.
The Secretary of State has asked whether we want every door in Long Kesh suddenly opened, allowing all the detainees to spill out. I think that means must be devised whereby those who are considered to be guilty of crime are brought before the courts. We have diluted justice, with special terrorists' courts being set up, and the onus of proof is changed. There is no jury. There is a single judge. But if such a system is established, it should be used to the full. Every person who is thought to be guilty should be brought before such courts. When, and only when, that type of law is exhausted, if the Secretary of State thinks that a person is a danger to the community, the right hon. Gentleman can exercise internment. In such a case, he will be responsible, and no one else, and he is answerable to this House for his action.
At present, if I talk to the Secretary of State about a case, he says that it has gone before a commissioner, the commissioner has said, "No", the case has gone to appeal, and the appeal has been dismissed, and he adds, "But I will look at the papers." But if I am able to say to him, "You are responsible. Why has this been done?", I can argue the case on behalf of the person concerned. Internment is a running sore in the Province. There are differences of opinion among Protestants about it, but that is a fact that this House must grasp.
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.
There may be hon. Members who feel that they have to vote against this order. That is a matter for their consciences. But this is a serious matter. It is one
1294
that this House needs to study with great care. I regret that these powers are being renewed without any amendment. I regret that nothing has been done. I welcome the fact that Lord Gardiner is to hear submissions, and my party will be putting certain submissions to his committee. We shall encourage those in Northern Ireland who have serious grievances in their minds to go before the committee to put forward their arguments.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) began his speech rather like an Old Testament prophet on the doctrine of retribution—or was it vengeance? After that I agreed with much of what he said about Long Kesh. The truth is that until one has been there and seen those acres of barbed wire and the young people marching and being told about arms training, one has no idea of what it is like.
I want to start my speech with a factual question. A lot has been said about Long Kesh. But what is happening about the women's gaol in Armagh? This nineteenth century gaol, with all these young women cooped up in it, is in a sense quite as anger-making as Long Kesh.
I will not go in detail into the letter written to me by my right hon. Friend on 26th June about the case of Miss McKee other than to make one point. It does not seem satisfactory that so many months should elapse between the visits of the various commissioners. Therefore, may I ask whether there are any plans for reviewing the situation in the Armagh women's prison in the same way as has been suggested for Long Kesh?
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made me terribly uneasy. However, I will not go into the Lobby with him tonight because I think that my right hon. Friend has achieved something. It may be only a start, it may be only a pioneer project, and certainly it is no panacea. However, he has released seven people from Long Kesh today.
I do not underrate this achievement. I suspect—my right hon. Friend cannot say this, but I can—that it was done in the

1295
teeth of the most fierce opposition by the chiefs of staff, for very understandable reasons. The chiefs of staff could say, "Our soldiers are risking their lives to get certain suspects into Long Kesh and off the streets and you, the civilian politicians, are letting them out." That is a heck of a thing with which to confront any Secretary of State, because the morale of the British Army is at stake.
By an act of considerable political will the Secretary of State, undoubtedly backed by the Cabinet, has overcome the strong feelings of the chiefs of staff. This is a considerable success. Therefore, having listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and having observed this gesture and act of successful political will, as I interpret it, on behalf of the Government, I cannot bring myself to go into the Lobby against the order.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I was hoping to get further support from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it is all too rare that Northern Ireland politicians elected to this House can find any area on which to agree. I certainly agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Last year and the year before I sat in this House and listened to the different sentiments which were then being expressed. I remember the apologetic way in which the Conservative Government introduced the legislation. I understand the reasons why they were apologetic. The Labour Party, which I support, was then in Opposition. Hon. Members of the then Opposition were more than apologetic. They showed their total and vehement opposition to the legislation. I was a member of the Committee on the Bill which is now an Act. I have with me copies of the debates in Committee. If the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General and the Minister of State were to read what they said then, they would know that opinions cannot be changed as quickly as that.
Mr. McNamara: I hope that my hon. Friend and I will be going the same way later tonight. But, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we should look very carefully at what he
1296
said in those debates about internment and detention. My hon. Friend will have noted that I did not quote what my right hon. Friend said then because he argued with the same consistency tonight. On every other of those points, however, he was with us.
Mr. Fitt: I am being rather more specific than my hon. Friend has been. I was prepared to look at the votes on Divisions in Committee. In all those Divisions there was complete unanimity by the Labour Members and myself. Many of the decisions were taken by the casting vote of the Conservative Chairman of the Committee. Things have not changed as dramatically as would enable my right hon. Friends, in all consistency and in all conscience, to have an attitude now that is completely different from that which they then adopted. Surely the Attorney-General cannot have changed his previous position on the abolition of jury trials in Northern Ireland. He previously put forward very cogent reasons why they should not be abolished. He said that if they were abolished in one part of the United Kingdom, the repercussions would be felt throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
We all put forward our cases then in all conscience. The questions which must be asked now are these: first, are my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State convinced that they were wrong then and that they are right now? Or are they saying that it was purely politics which animated them in expressing the sentiments which were expressed in that Committee? If these questions are not asked by hon. Members, they are being asked by people throughout Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, detention does not affect only the man who is detained. It affects all his relatives. That is why the Catholic community and, for the first time, many of the majority community are beginning to understand just how divisive and contentious detention can become.
I have certain questions to put in the light of the Secretary of State's opening remarks. In justifying detention and internment—and they are the same thing—is he saying that they are continuing because of the horrible crimes of

1297
violence? He referred to the case of a 15-year-old boy who was abducted from a detention centre in Northern Ireland and brutally murdered, allegedly by the Provisional IRA, because he was suspected of giving information to the security forces. He said that detention was resorted to in the case of the murder of three soldiers on the Antrim Road not far from my home. He said that detention was ordered when the Rathcoole murders took place and when there were murders at the Abbey meat factory.
How does he know that the people concerned were involved in these cases? Both Protestant and Catholic extremists are involved. What information did my right hon. Friend get and where did he get it? It enabled him and his predecessors to sign these ICOs. Is it a fact that five people—and this matter affects me personally—were detained in Long Kesh on suspicion of having murdered Senator Paddy Wilson at about this time last year? Is it a fact that two of these people were subsequently released by the commissioners and are now free? If that is so, it proves that there is no case for having the commissioners. If it is known that people have been engaged in murder, people against whom the Army has laid information, and those people are then released by the commissioners—and the Secretary of State is powerless to do anything about the matter—why were they detained in the first place? Either we accept that the commissioners are stupid and do not know their job because they are releasing murderers on the streets, or, if that is not the case, there is no justification for having the commissioners in the first place.
There have been quite a number of men arrested and detained by the Army, taken to an interrogation centre—Castlereagh is the current location—and ICOs have been signed against them. They are then brought before the commissioner within 28 days. Some hon. and right hon. Members might think in terms only of 28 days, but the actual period can be much greater. It can run into months and years. At the first hearing the commissioners might find that the person has not been involved in an offence and he is released. But what has happened to that person in the meantime? He might be a Catholic working for a Protestant employer, which would be the majority of
1298
cases, or he might be a Protestant working for a Catholic employer. Once he has been suspected of having had a part in an illegal organisation, he loses his job. No firm can afford to do without an employee for a period of five, six, seven or eight months.
Once a detainee is released from detention he is a marked man. No matter how innocent he may have been, there is always the suspicion that he was involved on the side of either Republican or Protestant extremism. His life is in danger after he has been released. People who have been released at their very first hearing before the commissioners find that their lives are in danger and that they have lost their jobs. Their children and wives are suffering, and there is no provision for compensation.
That was one of the matters we discussed at length in Committee. We opposed the previous Government because we believed that some form of compensation should be paid to a person who was arrested and detained and subsequently found to have been totally innocent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), ably supported by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, was correct to say that this is not only a question of detention and internment. There are 31 sections and five schedules in the Act. In the years to come this Parliament will not feel proud that it had to put such legislation on the statute book. It has always laid claim to be the protector of democracies and the whole democratic concept not only in this country but throughout the world. The order is a matter for which it will never have reason to forgive itself.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): My hon. Friend will recall that the argument when the Bill was being considered was very much a question of "Do you have detention or a diluted form of justice?", as I described it. My hon. Friend may say that we do not need either. If he does not, it is his duty to tell the House which of them he opts for. We have heard this argument of attack from several hon. Members on both sides of the House in the debate, but none has yet told us. "I would choose this and not the other".
Mr. Fitt: My right hon. and learned Friend puts forward a reasonable point of view. I do not believe that the Act has in any way contributed to peace in Northern Ireland. That is the reality of the situation. Even though it might include the people who were involved in the murder of Senator Paddy Wilson, I would advocate that the detention centres be opened and the slate be wiped clean, and I would be hoping against hope that that would in some way lead to a new political impetus.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I know that this point matters to my hon. Friend perhaps even more than to Members on the Opposition benches, although I do not know where they live. The hon. Gentleman lives in conditions at the bottom of Antrim Road in which I should not like to live. I am not making a cheap point here, but, given that fact, would he agree that the British Army should be left in the area?
Mr. Fitt: That was the point that I was about to make. I must relate the attitude of the British Army to detention, emergency provisions and to the political strike that took place in Northern Ireland some three or four weeks ago. I would never have thought that it could ever be envisaged in the United Kingdom that the Army would dictate to the Government, whatever political colour the Government might be. I would never have believed it possible that the Army would dictate.
I am now saying that it is my firm belief that the Army was reluctant to take action during the course of the strike which brought about the downfall of the Executive and the Sunningdale Agreement. It may be that some Northern Ireland hon. Members on the Opposition benches did not have a great deal of faith in the Sunningdale Agreement or the Executive, but it is my feeling—and I say this with some knowledge of what I am talking about—that if the Army had acted sooner, the Executive would still be in existence. I do not say that in a personal sense.
I believe that the Army is now saying to the British Government, "If you release the internees we are leaving Northern Ireland tomorrow." If the Government believe that that is the right political decision to take, they will have to take that decision. When an army is in a position to dictate to the Govern
1300
ment, we are getting to a dangerous state. It is something which we have never heard or thought we would hear of in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think that it is important to get this absolutely right. During the days of the Ulster Workers' Council political strike my hon. Friend knows that the Executive—and my hon. Friend was the Deputy Leader—made a request to the Government for the movement of petrol to a certain number of stations. I issued that instruction to the Army and it was carried out. On no occasion did the Army say "No" to any request that I made of it. I am not going into the wider argument of how we should deal with an industrial dispute in the electricity industry or with detention. I have the job of giving orders to the British Army and there has been no occasion on which it has refused to carry them out.
Mr. Fitt: I hope fervently that that will continue to be the position.
Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend will take my word.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: But does the hon. Gentleman accept it?
Mr. Fitt: I do not accept it fully. I would be less than honest if I did not inform the House of my reservations in view of what I know has happened in Northern Ireland. I know that the release of internees is a major problem as a result of the Army's attitude. I am not saying, and I have never said, that every internee was completely innocent of the charges brought against him. I have never said that and I would not dare to say that now. I could go on to say that there may be some internees who are guilty of some crimes, but we have heard what my right hon. Friend has said tonight. He has listed a catalogue of offences. If there were not people in Northern Ireland who were absolutely convinced that the people who were responsible for the Abbey meat factory murder, the Rathcoole murders, the 15year-old boy murder, the murder of the three soldiers and the murder of Paddy Wilson were those who have been interned, there would be such opposition that the running sore of internment would not exist.

1301
I repeat what I said earlier. The Secretary of State has said that as an earnest of his intention he has released seven internees. I cannot accept that as an earnest of his intention. The figure is derisory in Northern Ireland terms. It will not be accepted by anyone. At least the Conservative administration, following the Sunningdale Agreement released 65 internees. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on the Opposition Front Bench will know that the figure of 65 was treated with derision. How much worse will it be when the figure is only seven? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would be better to release no one until he is in a position to release a substantial number.
Many people were detained on 9th August 1971, and they cannot be blamed for any of the bombings and murders that have taken place in the three most tragic years that we have had since then. I suggest that as an earnest of the intentions of this Government the right hon. Gentleman should release those people who were interned originally on 9th August 1971. I could accept that, and the people of Northern Ireland could accept it. The slate could be wiped clean, and we could get rid of all the antagonisms and hostilities that have existed for so long in Northern Ireland between the minority population and those who formed the Unionist Government prior to the imposition of direct rule.
I am not a member of the Labour Government, but I have supported them since I came to the House and I shall continue to do so on all the major issues—and tomorrow will be another example, with the debate on the Bill to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. But on this occasion I can speak only for my constituents in Northern Ireland, and I shall be voting against the Government tonight.
11.31 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have only just come into the Chamber, and I have heard only part of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I realise the gravity of the problems that are being discussed, but I was a little disturbed, because the hon. Member does not speak simply as a back bencher on this matter. He does not talk without some sort of authority, and I think that it is an unhappy thing that it
1302
should be left on the record that when the Minister responsible has given an undertaking that at no time did the Army refuse to carry out political instructions, or neglect to carry them out, or carry them out with reluctance, the hon. Member for Belfast, West still speaks with a double voice.
After listening to the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member said that he hoped that what the right hon. Gentleman had said would continue to be the case, and then he said that he did not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement in its entirety. The hon. Member's views would not have been important if he had been talking as an ordinary back bencher and had not been closely associated with these matters, and if he had been talking more or less from instinct, or a hunch, but in view of the authoritative position that he held as deputy in the Executive until only a few weeks ago I feel that the record should have it straight: are the hon. Member's doubts justified, or should be accept completely and entirely the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I want to make it clear that any instructions that have been given to the Army have been carried out.
11.34 p.m.
Mr. Stan Newens: I listened with considerable sympathy to the case put forward by my right hon. Friend this evening, and I want to place on record the admiration that I have for the courage, energy and dedication that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have consistently shown in their endeavours to bring peace and political progress to Northern Ireland.
I also want to point out that I am utterly horrified by the relapse into barbarity in Northern Ireland, illustrated by the catalogue of acts of violence, viciousness, inhumanity and murder—not only those acts referred to by my right hon. Friend but the many other instances of which hon. Members are only too well aware.
I have nothing in common with these methods. I should not dare to offer any justification for the crimes that have been perpetrated, whether by the Provisional IRA, the official IRA, paramilitary Protestant groups, paranoic

1303
murderers, or anybody else. Unfortunately, however, the emergency provisions for internment just have not worked, and we have to face that fact this evening. The violence has not ceased, sectarian strife has not diminished, and in those circumstances we must ask ourselves whether we shall bring peace and progress to Northern Ireland by perpetuating what has been done for the last couple of years.
In 1969, I visited Northern Ireland as part of a Labour Party delegation. I am one of those hon. Members of this House who, because of their interest in a number of these problems, have been associated with efforts to raise the issue of civil rights in Northern Ireland. I believe that the present state of affairs and the inhumanity that one sees in Northern Ireland have arisen because for too long we were prepared to push on one side the civil injustices and the denial of human rights to people in that area.
What does internment do to the people about whom we are concerned tonight? I believe that it imparts a heroic quality to the inmates of the camps; that it makes them heroes in the eyes of their own communities. We can therefore say that at best it converts thugs into heroes, and at worst it results in the unjust detention of men who should not be there and so creates a feeling of injustice which spreads throughout the community.
My right hon. Friends did not introduce the system of internment, they inherited it, but if they soldier on with it in the way that appears likely, in the long run, in the eyes of history, the responsibility for the system will be foisted upon them. They should therefore think carefully about the situation and realise that upon their shoulders may be placed the responsibility for all that may ensue as a result of internment.
The reputation of Britain has been besmirched by what has occurred in Northern Ireland. We have allowed a precedent to be created which may be used in other parts of the United Kingdom to deny civil liberties to people. We must, therefore, ensure that an effort is made to depart from the road along which we are now travelling.
1304
I would have preferred some sort of package deal. I understand it when my right hon. Friend says that, if only the men of violence would stop, he would be prepared to end internment. I know that that is a sincere statement. Unless we take the initial step it may be that violence will not be ended. My right hon. Friend quoted cases of people whom he said have nothing that could be described as political motivation. I ask him to think seriously whether internment stopped such people. We have to try to create an atmosphere in which such people can be tried and put behind bars as, unfortunately, we have to put others behind bars, so that the whole community can see that they are guilty and deserve to be there, instead of being allowed, in some cases, to masquerade as heroes.
We must recognise that in all civil wars, and in Northern Ireland we have a suppressed civil war, terrible crimes are committed. History demonstrates that men are prepared to commit the most heinous crimes and at the same time to risk the most barbaric punishments when they believe that they are doing something in the name of a cause. The history of struggles in many parts of the world shows that however terrible the punishment may be—and it is by no means the most terrible punishment which the British Government are carrying out—it does not work.
There is no way out from the present impasse of violence and strife by maintaining internment and the panoply of emergency provisions. I do not believe that the only way forward is to abolish them at a stroke. What is necessary is some sort of package deal. If these provisions are approved once again without voices being raised to express the sort of sentiments I am expressing, it would be greatly to the detriment of future hopes for dealing with the issue.
I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that many of us who feel very strongly about this, and are taking a strong line, do so not because we feel a complete lack of sympathy with what he is seeking to do. It is because we believe that in our action lies the only way forward in Northern Ireland. I certainly believe that the only argument he can adduce here that will convince many of

1305
us that it is necessary to carry on with these powers is that they will stop future violence. I do not believe that he has done that. I do not believe it is possible to demonstrate that, and in those circumstances we ought to recognise that these powers ought not to be renewed. We very much hope that they will soon go, so that we shall be able to make a new effort to deal with this tangled and terrible problem.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. William van Straubenzee: No hon. Member on either side of the House could possibly complain about the House looking closely at an order of this kind, which is of fundamental importance. I am probably the only speaker in this debate who can claim to be totally consistent.
Mr. McNamara: No.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I except the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He was a persistent nuisance to me, as he has been to his own party—as he is entitled to be to both.
Mr. McNamara: Nonsense.
Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman had better go to bed if he is getting tired. When we come down to it, we shall find that there is more in common between the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and myself than he might suppose.
I would be less than human—although I am a kindly man, as the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State know—if I did not pause to reflect on the irony of something I said to the Attorney-General coming true. Last summer towards the end of the long-drawn-out proceedings to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central referred, I said to the Attorney-General that the time might come when I should be listening to him recommending to the House the extension of the procedures which he had with considerable ability and great assiduity opposed throughout, as had the Secretary of State. That experience has within it the most terrible warning for Oppositions. The Opposition never know when they may find themselves in Government. Nowadays it is wise to be cautious about what one
1306
says in Opposition. In my friendly, kindly way, I will leave it at that.
At Question Time on 27th June, in answer to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the Minister of State said that there could not be amendments to the Act by way of the orders but that there could be deletions. That is a clear and unexceptionable statement of fact, but from it I gained the clear impression, as I suspect did other hon. Members, that there would be deletions. I am not complaining, because I do not think that there should be deletions. We all know that the Minister of State would not intentionally mislead the House, but he may unintentionally have misled the House, and some difficulties may have arisen from that.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: There could easily have been deletions. Because of the minor nature of one or two of the deletions I thought it better to leave it to the Gardiner Committee. I accept full responsibility for that.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I realise that the Secretary of State has responsibility, but I think that some of the difficulties arose out of that statement.
Since the Government took office it has been borne fully upon them that the powers contained in the Act, unpleasant as they are, are absolutely necessary to the operation in Northern Ireland. I never hid from the House, and nor did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers)—who with me piloted the Bill through the Committee—how distasteful we, as lawyers, felt the Bill to be.
When the Attorney-General replies, I hope that he will make one thing clear. When the Secretary of State referred to "certain releases" he meant the release of detainees. He spoke of rehabilitation. That also referred to detainees.
This is very important. I suspect there are some hon. Members of the House who have the impression that the Maze prison is concerned solely with detainees. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) might well give that impression; "acres and acres of cages", as I remember his words; "young people drilling" was another phrase he used. There are young prisoners who are not detainees in the Maze prison.

1307
There are substantial numbers of special category prisoners in the Maze prison who are permitted to wear ordinary civilian clothes, and who to the uninitiated, casual observer might appear to belong to the same category. I do not suggest that the hon. Member was uninitiated. He took care to distinguish one cage from another. It is important, however, that that impression should not get abroad. I do not think the Secretary of State intended to interfere with the sentences legally imposed upon special category prisoners who were convicted.
The right hon. Member indicates his disagreement with the proposition that he should release special category prisoners. I am sure that is right. They have been through due process and courts of law. They have been convicted. Their sentences should be followed through in the usual way. It has been helpful that that should be made clear. We refer only to detainees.
I refer next to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He has changed his position on this matter. He now thinks that it would be preferable, out of two disagreeable alternatives, to return to internment at the behest of a Minister rather than to detention with a form of legal process. That was not his original view. I have a cutting here to remind us. The hon. Member will recall that when Diplock and his colleagues first reported, he welcomed the report and said that at times stern measures were necessary to deal with terrorism. He added that many of the Diplock proposals had been put to the then Secretary of State by himself and his own political associates.
Since that time he has taken a different view. I believe that he is wrong. I do not care for internment at the behest of the Minister. I do not positively care for detention with a form of legal process. But I have no doubt that the second is preferable to the first. It is in the interests of those concerned that there should be a form of legal process even if it falls well short of what generally we would regard as acceptable.
When I wound up the recent defence debate I told of an experience of mine. It was directly relevant to the dis
1308
cussions we had then. I give it very shortly again. As we cannot read each other's speeches, it may be worth repeating. It sums up well the problem faced by the Secretary of State.
I gave as an example my experience then of having close dealings with a battalion of the Parachute Regiment who were at that time, and subsequently, in the Ardoyne. I told of how bitterly those young men resented the allegation that they were uncivilised and boors, and how admirably they conducted themselves and brought peace to a difficult part of Belfast. I had been approached by leading members of the Roman Catholic community from that part of Belfast asking me to use such influence as I had for the tour of the paratroopers to be extended because they had brought peace and because "the bad men were locked up in Long Kesh". When a deputation from the National Council for Civil Liberties came to see me—not, on this issue, a very balanced deputation—and we were discussing why the Ardoyne was so peaceful and the lights were on. one of those concerned said, "The bad men are in Long Kesh." I said, "Exactly."
This is the difficulty facing the Secretary of State, as it faced his predecessor. He has been getting a statistical reduction in incidents—this has not been as fully brought out as it might have been—but to achieve that he must have the equipment first, of trial by one judge. The account given by the previous Attorney-General of the misuse of justice by juries, I think, totally convinced the House. There must also be certain powers of search for the Army and there must be powers of detention.
Every country which has had some form of detention has faced the problem of how to phase it out. It is instructive to look at the experience of other countries. Kindly reference has been made to the initiative of the previous Secretary of State in releasing 65 detainees towards the end of the year. It would help us—I should be the last, of course, to press Ministers on security matters if it was their judgment that details should not be disclosed—if the Attorney-General could tell us how many of those 65 have been redetained or charged.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) feeling very deeply about this

1309
matter, just as we on this side do, said, unlike the hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr. Fitt), that it was not practicable to release every detainee at once. He was taking an appropriately pragmatic view. He was pressing for quick action—I do not want to put words into his mouth—but he was not saying that every detainee should be immediately released. In that he was right. The problem for Ministers is not the principle of releasing them—no Minister of any Government I can imagine in this country wants detention for an unlimited period—but the question of scale and timing, of how many of those released may demonstrably return to the previous practice of bombing and shooting for political and other ends.
There are some hon. Members who should do as the Secretary of State has said he does—spend a period with the Army out around the streets and reflect that we are asking the soldiers to act within the law. We must be virtually the only nation in the world—this is sometimes a sore point with the soldiers—who, faced with an insurrection of this kind, rightly ask our young men to risk their lives but to act within the law. Almost any other nation I can think of would have allowed them to go outside the law.
But if we are to require that discipline of them—and in my view it is a right and proper discipline, and in my experience the great majority of them accept that it is necessary—we in this House must make sure that we give them the appropriate legal armoury. That is our half of the compact with these young men whose lives are at risk at our behest and on the Secretary of State's instructions.
When one is in the position of a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or of one of his Ministers and is responsible for the lives of these young men, one has to make a judgment in favour of giving them a legal framework rather than the reverse. The Secretary of State cannot be criticised for so doing, and we shall support him in the difficult judgment which he has to make.
12.1 a.m.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): What we are discussing tonight is whether this House should renew for a period of six months, and six months only—although a further renewal could
1310
take place—the provisions of the 1973 Act. We are considering the order against the background that the present Government have set up a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of a most distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and containing among its members persons of the greatest possible experience both of the conditions in Northern Ireland and generally of the law and of human rights.
It is wrong for anybody to suggest that what we are now doing is giving our accolade to this Act as though we took the view that it were something that should stand for all time. 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 hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that future Parliaments would not be proud of this legislation. I agree with him that this is not the kind of legislation which any Parliament wishes to see on the statute book—nor are the conditions which made this legislation essential in some form or other, whether or not we agree with all of it, such as we can be proud of.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said he hoped that it would be possible to restore as soon as possible the full and ordinary right of trial. I agree with him. I have said time and again in the past that what we were dealing with in terms of Part I of the Act was a form of diluted justice. We had to satisfy ourselves by the closest questioning of the Government of the day whether each individual clause of the Bill, as it then was, was necessary and whether every part of every clause was necessary. I am sure the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will not take the view that anything less than the fullest possible inquiry and diligence on the part of the opposition in those circumstances would have been justified.
When we come to the question of renewal there are a number of major dilemmas. There is a major dilemma on the question whether the conditions that

1311
exist today are such that legislation of this kind needs to be on the statute book at all. Everything that has been said tonight, and everything that we know about conditions in Northern Ireland—conditions of terrorism and intimidation—must surely indicate that something is necessary to enable certain people to be either kept out of harm's way or brought to justice. Those people may have friends who can intimidate witnesses, juries or judges, or anyone else connected with a case. Some are people against whom one cannot mount a case under the judicial provisions of the Act, and they have to be dealt with under the other procedure. That is the first dilemma, and I hope that there will not be any real difference of opinion about that.
The second major dilemma which has been referred to in the debate is the question whether, given that there are those conditions and that there must be special legislation to deal with them, it is necessary that we should have both a system of detention or internment and a system, such as we have in Part I of the Act, in which the normal safeguards of trial by jury and the various rules which we are used to in this country are watered down. Is it necessary to have both of these, as well as the soldiers who are there to protect the population of Northern Ireland from violence and intimidation? In listening to some of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I thought how easy it always is to attack first one Part of the Act and then the other Part, and, in that way, to give an impression that one can dispose of one Part or another, yet never to come down to the particular Part which they suggest should be disposed of. I got the impression from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West—I may have misunderstood him on this, because he did not seem to complete the point in which case he will correct me—that because he was so concerned to end internment or detention he would be prepared to accept something less in terms of the judicial process.
If the position is that one thing or the other is necessary, I think it is right that hon. Members who speak against the order should say plainly what they think ought to be done awa ywith. If they are not able to give an answer to that which
1312
is a perfectly reasonable stance, they ought to be prepared to say that it is perfectly right and proper, and indeed necessary, that a body such as the Gardiner Committee—with experts who have experience of conditions in Northern Ireland and who wish to see the maximum amount of human rights and civil liberties in Northern Ireland, consistent with the situation there—ought at least to be given the task of advising the House, first, on the dilemmas involved and, secondly, on other matters that have to be considered in relation to the detailed provisions of the Act.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that in Committee he came down strongly in favour of one side of that dilemma. Why does he now recommend that that should go to the Gardiner Committee? Will he advise the Government to that effect?
The Attorney-General: What I may advise the Government is a matter between me and the Government. I am saying that, whatever my personal judgment is it may not be correct, and that it is reasonable that my judgment and that of the Secretary of State and the Government should be subject to the detailed examination that will be given to all these procedures by the committee and that, at the end, we should be in a position, having read the committee's report, to make up our minds in a more informed way as between the two possibilities. It may even be that we shall have to accept something on the lines of both parts of the Act. I hope that that will not be necessary. But, before we have that report, I do not see how we can make an informed judgment and cast away completely one or the other.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not just the task of that committee to scrutinise legislative suggestions? Is not it the job of the legislature itself to scrutinise, and are not we doing that tonight?
Mr. Silkin: Of course it is a function of the legislature, and the legislature will decide, if the House Passes this order, after having had the most careful study made by the Gardiner Committee, helped by those actually engaged in doing the work on both parts of the Act in

1313
Northern Ireland. I have already seen a number of the memoranda which may be produced to the Gardiner Committee and I have been asked by the committee to give it my own views.
At the end, I hope that an informed report will be placed before the House upon which hon. Members will be able to make up their minds and exercise their judgments. In the end, it will be for the House to make up its mind what should be done. In considering that, the House has to bear in mind that the provisions of the Act are such that we can renew it as a whole or with the omission of certain parts—but we cannot amend it. From what I have seen in the three or four months in which I have been Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I believe that it may be necessary eventually to put forward amendments to the Act in the form of a Bill which will have to go through Parliament in the ordinary way. It may be found that it will not be a matter simply of omitting here and there, and otherwise renewing the Act.
I have spoken of the major dilemmas, but I invite the House to consider one or two of the minor dilemmas on which we hope to have the views of Lord Gardiner's committee.
Dealing with detention, in Part II, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that he regarded detention as a purely administrative matter and did not want it dressed up as though it were something different by the system of commissioners and the complications to be found in the schedule dealing with detention. That is an understandable view. The hon. Member for Antrim, North holds a similar view.
In that context, the Gardiner Committee will have to consider whether it is right that people should be subject to administrative detention and that their fate should be in the hands of the Secretary of State and his Department, without any possibility of telling some independent person, or body, "You have the wrong man. You have made a mistake. You should be seeking someone else for the offence which is the occasion for the order which has been made."
I take the view that that kind of procedure is desirable, but my hon. Friend takes a different view. That matter can properly be dealt with by the Gardiner
1314
Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will put his views to the Gardiner Committee, so that it may properly consider that matter.
Mr. McNamara: The Gardiner Committee can be made aware of my views, because they are stated clearly in the records of this House. My right hon. and learned Friend said that an individual may say to the commissioners, "You have got the wrong man." How can an individual say that, if he is refused access to the evidence that has put him there in the first place, as can happen?
The Attorney-General: I am fully aware of the difficulties of this procedure. It is a matter for consideration whether the procedure is or is not of value. That is a matter on which the Gardiner Committee may be able to help us.
Perhaps I may cite another example.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Before my right hon. and learned Friend goes on, may I put one point to him? The Secretary of State said that the Attorney-General would deal with this point in his remarks. Some of us found it difficult, and others found it impossible, to accept the idea of imprisonment by the Executive, even for a month. I understand that, in practice, because of delays of between three and six months before the commissioners hear cases, there is imprisonment by the Executive for not one month but periods extending from four to seven months, which is even more unacceptable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that point?
The Attorney-General: I was about to come to that point on the review procedure, because that procedure affects what my hon. Friend said. I agree that it is intolerable that someone who may not be the right person to be detained for a particular matter should be held in custody for as long as seven months before coming before a commissioner to put his case and then, perhaps, being released. Nobody can defend that situation. However, there are a number of reasons why this may happen. They are reasons concerned partly with the small number of commissioners' courts—although the number is being increased—but, most of all, with the immense strain that is being imposed on the legal profession in Northern Ireland, which is unable

1315
to cope with all the proceedings with which it has to deal.
That brings me to the dilemma which I hope the House will accept is a proper dilemma for the Gardiner Committee to examine. We do not accept that it is right that people should be held for seven months without trial, but what is contributing largely to that situation is the provision in the schedule that, in addition to the administrative review by the Secretary of State, there is the automatic review by a commissioner after a person has been in detention for a year. We know that if the review procedure by commissioners were got rid of it would be possible to reduce the delay considerably from seven months for the initial hearing. Therefore, we must consider whether that is the right course to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) will be aware that many people will say that to abandon a system of review of that kind is to abandon one of the proper safeguards of the citizen. A further dilemma for the Gardiner Committee to consider is whether the greater evil is delay or the abandonment of that safeguard.
I shall not go through the Act and recite the various matters that might have been omitted. We have considered a number of sections very carefully indeed—that is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave the reply that he did which has been referred to—to see whether it was possible to omit parts of the Act, when renewing it in this way, without doing violence to the Gardiner Committee's consideration, the benefit of which we shall ultimately have. Although there are no doubt sections which we could have omitted—indeed, we could have done so in some cases purely as a matter of window dressing—we did not think that it would be right to do that. Having given very full consideration to each of the sections that were under review, we thought that it would be better, in the long run, that the Gardiner Committee should look at the Act as a whole
and report to the House, because the Committee may well take the view that certain sections need to be amended and certain need to be improved. We thought that it would not be right, in cases in which we thought that there was a possibility of omitting sections altogether, to take that step.
I hope, therefore, that the House will take the view that we have, on balance, taken the right course here. There is a great deal in the Act that needs careful study by the legislature, but with the help of an expert committee to assist it in reaching the right conclusions on these various matters.
Whatever doubts some hon. Members may have about certain parts of the Act, 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. One hopes that they will do so in a very much better atmosphere in Northern Ireland than exists today, and in the light of the political solutions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier today.
Mr. van Straubenzee Mr. van Straubenzee rose—
The Attorney-General: I was about to answer, as far as I could, the hon. Member for Wokingham, who expressed uncertainties about the effect of the policy of release from detention. I cannot give him an answer tonight as to how many of those who were released before Christmas have been re-detained. There have been some. I undertake to see that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer within the next two or three days. I hope that that will suffice. I hope that with that assurance both he and his hon. Friends will join myself and my hon. Friends in supporting the order.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 17.

Division No. 70.]

AYES

[12.23 a.m.

Archer, Peter

Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)

Cox, Thomas

Armstrong, Ernest

Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

Crawshaw, Richard

Beith, A. J.

Buchan, Norman

Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)

Bishop, E. S.

Carmichael, Neil

Dalyell, Tam

Boardman, H.

Cocks, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Booth, Albert

Coleman, Donald

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Deakins, Eric

Lawrence, Ivan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dormand, J. D.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Small, William

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Lyons, Edward (Bradford. W.)

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Eadie, Alex

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spearing, Nigel

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Maclennan, Robert

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

English, Michael

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Strang, Gavin

Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

Marks, Kenneth

Tinn, James

George, Bruce

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Tomlinson, John

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

Meacher, Michael

Urwin, T. W.

Golding, John

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Grant, John (Islington, C.)

Millan, Bruce

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hamling, William

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Watkins, David

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Ronald King

Weatherill, Bernard

Harper, Joseph

Oakes, Gordon

Whitlock, William

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)

Hatton, Frank

Ovenden, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

Hawkins, Paul

Owen, Dr. David

Winstanley, Dr. Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Winterton, Nicholas

Hunter, Adam

Pavitt, Laurie

Woodall, Alec

John, Brynmor

Pendry, Tom

Young, David (Bolton, E.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)

Jopling, Michael

Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)

Judd, Frank

Radice, Giles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lamborn, Harry

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

Mr. Walter Johnson and

Lamond, James

Roper, John

Mr. James A. Dunn

NOES

Atkinson, Norman

McGuire, Michael

Stallard, A. W.

Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, M.)

Madden, M. O. F.

Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)

Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

Newens, Stanley (Harlow)

Wise, Mrs. Audrey

Cryer, G. R.

O'Halloran, Michael

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Prescott, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.
Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The resolution on the business of the House earlier today determined that the House would sit for three hours on the order or until one o'clock, "whichever is the later". Who has the authority to change the decision of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Only the House itself. When the Question was put there was no hon. Member on his feet, and therefore I had to put the Question.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Ordered,
  That in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

PETITIONS

  Cohabitation Rule
  Mr. Bruce George: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present the humble petition of the National Association of Widows, Gingerbread, the Child Poverty Action Group and others.
  The petition sheweth
  That grave hardship and injustice is caused to widows and other unsupported mothers and their children by the wrongful application of the cohabitation rule.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House amend the operation of the cohabitation rule to provide that

  1. The social security legislation clearly define the term "cohabitation" and that this definition be clearly entered in all relevant pension and supplementary benefit order books.

  2. No pension or supplementary allowance be withdrawn until such time as an independent tribunal has considered the case,

  3. Legally aided representation be provided for all women alleged to be cohabiting who appear before such tribunals.

  4. A second tier of appeal be introduced into the supplementary benefits appeal structure for consideration of such cases.

  1319

  5. The chairmen of all supplementary benefits appeal tribunals hearing such cases be legally qualified.

  The petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rates (Melton)
  Mr. Michael Latham: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition signed by about 12,000 ratepayers and electors in the Melton parliamentary constituency.
  The petition sheweth
  That the increase in local rates in the area of the two local authorities within the Melton Parliamentary Constituency for the year 1974–75 is onerous in extent and is causing hardship and financial difficulty to ratepayers therein, and that the hardship has been increased by the decision of Parliament to redistribute the Rate Support Grant domestic relief subsidy, to the great disadvantage of your petitioners.
  The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that an immediate inquiry be set up to advise the House of Commons on sources of Local Government Finance alternative to the present rating system; and that, as an immediate measure of relief, a Bill be introduced into the House of Commons to transfer the whole cost of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer.
  The petition ends in the customary way, with the words
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rates (Melton)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James A. Dunn.]

  TOURISM
  12.36 a.m.
  Sir George Young: In a perceptive book on tourism which I published last year and which is still, unfortunately, available at most reputable bookshops, I argued the case for a national policy for tourism in this country. The Minister has, I am sure, read
  1320
  and re-read that significant contribution. I am in distinguished company in pressing the Government for a policy for tourism. The Minister's predecessor said:
  "If any public money is to be spent on furthering tourism, it is right that the Government should set out the objectives which that expenditure is designed to secure."
  That is a sentiment to which no reasonable person could object.
  In a report published by the National Economic Development Office, entitled, "Hotel Prospects to 1980" it was stated that
  "The existence of an explicit national tourism policy could do much to help and guide the actions of those concerned at national, regional and local levels with the development of tourism."
  In last year's annual report the English Tourist Board repeated the same plea. It said:
  "We are convinced that this country needs national guidelines for tourism—a broad strategy endorsed by the Government to which the Government will be committed. Tourism is too big, too important and affects the interests of too many people to be allowed to develop without positive guidance."
  Recently we had a publication entitled, somewhat misleadingly, "Tourism Policy in Britain", in which it was stated that
  "Because of the rate of increase in tourism over recent years and the increases expected over the next few years, tourism pressures are reaching a critical stage and some very substantial decisions are required."
  Many people are beginning to press the Government for some policy guidelines for this vast industry, and it is a matter of regret that the Minister's Department has so far felt unable to respond to this pressure. We have no policy for tourism. We have no broad objectives which the various components within the tourist industry can follow. It has been said of the Minister's Department, as far as its responsibility for tourism is concerned, that it apparently regards this part of its task as so very delicate that year after year it has shaken it off altogether. That was said by Mr. Ogilvie in 1933. I am sure that he will be delighted to hear me repeat it over 40 years later.
  If we look at measures concerned with the development of tourism we find that there is no useful guidance for the various statutory bodies and the various components of the tourist industry. As a result of the absence of a tourist policy

  1321
  and the absence of any framework within which to make sensible decisions, we have lurched from one short-term expedient to another, without the slightest idea where we are going. We relieve one bottleneck in the system only to create another one somewhere else.
  I cite as evidence the handling of the hotel development incentives and the construction of London's third airport. On hotel development incentives, £60 million of public money went into development in the central area of London. Most of those hotels would have been built, anyway. Some of them were not needed, as we now have an embarrassing surplus of hotel capacity. Because the Government had not identified the rôle which they wanted the hotel industry to play within an overall policy for tourism they were unable to establish sensible criteria for disbursement of that money or to direct the funds involved to where they were most needed. The massive increase in hotel capacity in London was in no way related to the limited capacity of London's principal tourist attractions. If the Minister is in doubt about that, perhaps he will accompany me in about nine hours' time to Westminster Abbey, where he will see ample evidence of that statement. The hotel development incentive scheme operates in a policy vacuum.
  I level the same criticism at the way in which we dealt with the siting of London's third airport. The fact that visitors, once they had landed, might need some accommodation, formed no part of the commission's consideration. As a result, the forecasts on which it worked—about 40 million tourists in 2006, as against about 8 million last year—bore no relation to London's capacity to absorb that number once they had landed. If we think about it we see that the land requirement for hotels to accommodate that number of tourists is beyond the capacity of London, given its dire housing problem.
  Nor were more important strategic questions considered, such as whether it was right to divert a higher and higher proportion of London's labour force towards the labour-intensive service industries, with low productivity potential. The consideration of London's third airport took place in a policy vacuum. The implications of the construction of that
  1322
  airport were never followed through. The decision-making machinery was defective, and the responsibility lies mainly with the former DTI.
  If we are to make coherent and consistent decisions about the tourist industry in this country, and use public money sensibly, we have to have some idea of the volume and pattern of the tourist movement that the Government envisage. We need a tourist policy against which to judge the various issues that are thrown up. I have mentioned only two.
  However, it is not enough for the Minister to concede the case for a national tourism policy; he has to have the machinery for formulating the right one. I hope that he will concede that this evening. If he asked for a national tourism policy at the moment I suspect that he would get two, because responsibility for tourism has been split—illadvisedly—with one set of people, the British Tourist Authority, responsible for marketing and promotion overseas and another—consisting of the tourist boards—responsible for the provision and development of various facilities at home.
  The British Tourist Authority is basically a marketing organisation. Of the £5·7 million that it spent last year, £4·4 million was spent promoting Britain overseas. Its policy is essentially demand-oriented; it wants to bring as many people here as it can. To quote from a recent annual report:
  "Never before has there been a clearer need than now to promote this country hugely overseas and encourage the world to come to Britain."
  Its policy would involve a continued increase in visitors, more airports, the diversion of more labour towards the labour-intensive industries and, in the long term, more hotels in London and other tourist destinations, with scant consideration for the needs of the natives.
  On the other hand, from the English, Welsh and Scottish boards we would get a different policy. These boards have a strong regional presence, particularly in those areas where the tourist pressures are most acute. From them we would get a supply-oriented approach, related to the capacity of the tourist areas to absorb tourists. It is this approach that we see beginning in an enlightened document called "Tourism in London", in which

  1323
  the tourist boards have collaborated. The division of responsibility between the marketing people and the development people—which I believe to be a mistake, anyway—will lead to a delay in the formulation of a unified national tourist policy, because the two organisations start from different premises. My view is that we should start with the supply-oriented approach and derive the marketing policy from it.
  We must redefine—I put it no stronger—the rôles of the BTA and the tourist boards. I believe that they should be part of an integrated structure, with marketing and development clearly related, rather than autonomous bodies with overlapping and conflicting responsibilities, which can only lead to confusion and ill feeling.
  The Minister having been kept from his bed until this late hour, he may not be overjoyed to hear me say that I believe he is the wrong Minister to respond to this Adjournment debate. On the other hand, he may be delighted to know that the problems which I have described should fall on other shoulders. I think it is clear from what I have said that the key issues in tourism are planning, rather than trading ones. Of course, tourism generates foreign currency, but for this to be the prime motivating factor behind the formulation of a policy would be wrong, and one has only to look at what has happened to the coasts of Spain to see why it would be wrong.
  I therefore believe that the right Department to tackle this problem is the Department of the Environment and not the Department of Trade, because the need is for an approach based on our capacity to absorb tourists and not on our ability to persuade them to come here. The Department of Trade is principally interested in foreign exchange, and therefore has a somewhat narrow approach to its responsibilities in tourism.
  I am encouraged by the thought of what may happen if we switch tourism to the Department of the Environment by looking at what happened to the former Ministry of Transport when it was absorbed within the new Department of the Environment. Previously, the Ministry of Transport was responsible for
  1324
  building roads. Predictions of traffic flows were carried out, lines were drawn on maps, and roads duly appeared, but then the public started protesting. The Chiswick Flyover caused a lot of resentment among those living near it. There were protests about Westway, and a greater protest about ringways for London. People started asking whether the fact that roads were needed was the sole criterion for building them, and whether broader planning considerations should not be a factor.
  The integration of the Ministry of Transport within the Department of the Environment had a beneficial effect, because engineers had to justify their proposals to their environmental colleagues, and often they had to put a few kinks in the straight lines, or rub them out. Few people would dispute that the approach to highway planning is much better now than it used to be because it is integrated with overall planning. I seek the same results by placing responsibility for tourism with the Department of the Environment, and I have sufficient confidence in that Department to believe that I should not be disappointed.
  A national tourist policy would start by the Department of the Environment requiring all the local authorities to identify the rôle of tourism in their areas. A summation of these local plans would give the Department an idea of the country's capacity to absorb both domestic and overseas tourists. This would then be the input to the market policy, which would reverse the present process. It would also be an input to a policy related to hotels, airports and a general tourist infrastructure. It would reverse the process whereby marketing policy is the tail that wags the dog. The BTA tells us how many tourists it hopes to bring here, and the destinations respond by making the facilities available, often at some cost to the environment. I seek to reverse this process.
  Other countries to which we often refer as underdeveloped are light-years ahead of us in managing their tourist industries both coherently and sensibly. They have identified the rôle which they wish to see their tourist industry play, and they have related it to other national objectives. They have been able to harness the energies and wealth which a growing

  1325
  tourist industry generates to secure desirable objectives, instead of allowing those energies to destroy the destinations and the wealth to slip out of the country. It is this enlightened approach which I ask the Minister to adopt tonight.
  12.49 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I must first say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for having raised the question of tourism tonight. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way that he presented his case. Outside this House he is already recognised as an authority on tourism, notably through his book in the Penguin series "Tourism—Blessing or Blight?" which I read with great interest almost immediately on taking up my post as Minister.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that he has good reason for wanting to make his mark in the House before the next election, I think we can all agree that he puts his case with distinction, and I hope that, regardless of the outcome of the next election, it will not be too long before the House has an opportunity to hear from him again.
  The title of his book is a provocative one, as I think it was intended to be. There is a tendency in certain quarters to think that tourism is an unqualified blessing, and I share the hon. Member's view that some of the assumptions underlying this view need to be carefully examined. But, if some of the blessings have been overstated, we must not immediately swing to the other extreme by arguing that tourism is an unqualified blight. I know that in his speech the hon. Member dissociated himself from both extremes, but I put it to him that in drawing attention to some of the disadvantages of tourism, particularly foreign tourism, he has in fact rather overstated his case.
  We must first of all remember that more people leave these shores as tourists than arrive here; in 1973 there were 11·3 million trips abroad by United Kingdom residents and there were 7·6 million overseas visits to this country. So, if we play the numbers game, the growth of international tourism might be considered positively advantageous from the hon. Member's point of view. If we take
  1326
  holiday visitors alone the balance could be said, on this argument, to be even more in our favour. The problem is that those who go abroad are drawn from all parts of the country, whereas those who arrive here from abroad for their holidays tend to congregate in London and the south of England generally. I know this to my cost, because I live right in the middle of it, in Piccadilly Circus.
  What can we do about it? The hon. Member speaks almost—and this emerges from his book—as if he wanted to give a licence to every visitor telling him when he should come, where he should go, and how long he should stay. The fact is that in a free society we shall not be able to prevent people from coming here for their holidays if they wish to. We can make them pay for the privilege by taxing them or we can make them so unwelcome and so uncomfortable that they stay away, but experience suggests that a tourist tax would have to be very high indeed to slow down the rate of growth significantly, and I believe, on the second point, that there is a limit to which we should go in restricting the supply of facilities which tourists demand.
  The House will know that thousands of our own people flock to the resorts during the holiday season and are quite content to sleep in their cars if they fail to find a bed for the night. Overseas visitors could well do the same, adding to the blight of which the hon. Member rightly complains. We must also remember that we are tourists when we go on holiday and that if we resent the increase in the number of foreign tourists here, they may also resent our presence there, when, unthinkingly, we enjoy the delights of, for example, Paris or Rome.
  The problem—as the hon. Member points out in his book—is essentially one of distribution. The number of home tourists far exceeds the number of overseas tourists, but the great bulk of home tourists continue to patronise the traditional tourist areas, and over the past century adequate facilities have been developed to cope with their needs. Blackpool would not be Blackpool if it were not crowded with visitors, and I suspect that very few of its inhabitants complain about tourist congestion. Indeed, their fear is that one day the visitors will go away.

  1327
  The problem raised by the growth of overseas tourism is that the visitors are mainly drawn from the prosperous sections of their respective communities and do not generally come to spend a week in a boarding house by the sea; they come to see our historic buildings and ceremonial pageantry. Our problem is to persuade them to go further afield, and this is, in part, a problem of persuading the tour operators and others that an enjoyable holiday can be had in other parts of the country and, in part, a problem of persuading independent holidaymakers, who outnumber the others by nearly three to one, to venture forth from London by public or by private transport to discover what we have to offer.
  It has been said that there is a limit to the extent to which the British Tourist Authority can persuade visitors to move outside London and the South-East. This is obviously true, but the question is whether the limit has been reached. I am not convinced that it has. Most people who come here will want to visit London at some time during their stay, but London promotes itself, and in promoting Britain overseas we should perhaps put even more emphasis than we do on the attractions of the regions, particularly the development areas and those areas which depend on tourism for their prosperity.
  The fact that tourism is a very labour-intensive industry is in this respect a positive advantage. Employment in manufacturing industry may be preferable in areas where manufacturing industry is prepared to go, but where it is not there is everything to be said for introducing or strengthening the tourist industry as a means either of providing new employment or of avoiding depopulation. I have in mind particularly upland areas, where it is hard to wrest a living from the soil and where the farmer and his family can use a spare room or build additional rooms to accommodate tourists.
  It has been suggested—and this emerged from the hon. Member's book—that the balance of payments advantage of tourism is illusory, or, at least, overstated. It is true that in the extreme case a foreign tourist may be brought here by a foreign tour operator, in a foreign aircraft, to stay in a foreign-owned hotel, to be waited on by foreign waiters, but
  1328
  that is an extreme case. There can be no doubt at all that overseas visitors contribute substantially to the balance of payments and, in particular, earn a surplus over expenditure by British residents travelling overseas. The larger the share of the trade taken by British operators the better, and I hope in this connection that some of those who find that their trade in taking Britons abroad is dwindling will turn their attention to bringing overseas visitors here. The situation may be different in some other countries, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Government welcome the contribution which the tourist industry is making to our balance of payments at this present particularly difficult time.
  The hon. Member has drawn attention—again in his book—to the demands which tourism makes on land. I would not for one moment pretend that the huge increase in the number of hotels in London in recent years has not reduced the supply of land for housing and other purposes, but the increase has resulted in a substantial surplus of capacity in London and I do not think that we need worry too much about further large-scale encroachment by hotels on building land in London in the foreseeable future.
  The hon. Member referred to the hotel development incentive scheme. There has been renewed pressure for a new hotel development incentive s theme, particularly in the development areas. Such proposals need to be treated with great care. There is good reason to believe that most of the hotels built in recent years would have been built without Government assistance and, while there may be a case for Government assistance to hotel building in some locations, particularly when the season is short and where manufacturing would not be a realistic alternative, the fact that there is a shortage of accommodation would not in itself be a justification for a Government grant.
  Indeed, I would not expect new hotels to be built unless there ha d been a shortage over a period, and o encourage a new hotel to be built as soon as a shortage appeared would be no use Government money to take away business from existing suppliers. The English Tourist Board has shown in a recent survey that hotels are being built in most areas. The

  1329
  very exceptional cases to which I have referred can be dealt with under Section 4 of the Act.
  So much for the pillars on which the hon. Member has rested his case. He will see that I have not dismissed his arguments. What he has said is important, and he deserves to be congratulated for being among the first to voice his doubts about tourism in a systematic form, but his doubts are doubts and not certainties. Moreover, he gives Government—and here I include the previous administration, as well as this one—less credit for intelligence than they deserve.
  It is not, of course, true to say that we have not got a national tourist policy. Our policy, like that of the previous administration, is to encourage the development of tourism to and within Great Britain. The hon. Member may not agree with the policy and, indeed, may wish to reverse the tourist tide. What is really at issue is the question of tourism strategy and the question of Exchequer support.
  On this we have been feeling our way forward in the light of the experience gained in the first four years of the operation of the BTA and the tourist boards under the Development of Tourism Act 1969. More and more emphasis has been and is being put on the return to the community as a whole from Government expenditure on tourism rather than on the return to the trade interests concerned, whose influence is not negligible, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) recently discovered in introducing the Local Revenue Bill. We may not have to come to such firm conclusions that we now feel able to proclaim that we have a new tourist policy which is in some way sharply different from that of our predecessors. Indeed, we do not believe that in a constantly changing situation there is a simple answer to the problems which tourism produces, but, if Governments have shunned the rôle of sage and prophet, the hon. Member may at least take comfort from the fact that we continue to resist the claims of those who believe that indiscriminate and open-ended expenditure by Governments on financial assistance to every aspect of tourism is necessarily in the public interest.
  1330
  The idea of cost-benefit has long ceased to be a monopoly of the universities! The hon. Member referred to Maplin and expressed some doubts on the split between marketing and organisation in the tourist industry. He asked whether, because of its responsibilities for civil aviation, the Department of Trade is the right body to sponsor the tourist industry and oversee the work of the tourist boards. The question of who looks after tourism is, of course, for the Prime Minister, but the hon. Gentleman cannot in the same breath complain about lack of coordination in Government and about one Department looking after two or more aspects of the same problem.
  I cannot say how our predecessors arrived at their decision on Maplin. What I can say is that this Government have taken the tourist potential fully into account in examining the need for a third London airport. In saying this I do not deny that there are other considerations and I have no doubt that these will be given due weight as our policy evolves. Decisions may have been made in a vacuum by the last administration. I hope and, indeed, believe that we will do considerably better.
  In conclusion, I will say again what I said at the beginning of the debate—that I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this subject tonight. Governments almost everywhere have been reexamining their assumptions about tourism, if only because of the implications for tourism of the energy crisis, but I can assure him that this Government will certainly not ignore the kind of considerations to which he has referred, even if we do not end up by coming to precisely the same conclusions. The tourist industry should not be regarded by government either as a blessing or a blight, but as one of the number of industries which play an important rôle in our economy but which need to be constrained only where there is clear evidence that the economic and social advantages to the community as a whole are more than offset by the disadvantages.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Threshold Agreements
  Threshold Agreements
  Government and Nationalised Industry Services (Prices)
  Government and Nationalised Industry Services (Prices)
  Arms Industry Workers (Redeployment)
  Arms Industry Workers (Redeployment)
  Pay Settlements (Ministerial Consent)
  Pay Settlements (Ministerial Consent)
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Home Workers
  Home Workers
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
  Trade Union Wage Claims
  Trade Union Wage Claims
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
  Worker Directors
  Worker Directors
  Brickmaking Industry
  Brickmaking Industry
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Melton
  Melton
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Pay Board
  Pay Board
  Explosives
  Explosives
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Medical Physics Technicians
  Medical Physics Technicians
  Flixborough Disaster (EEC Aid)
  Flixborough Disaster (EEC Aid)
  Widows' Pensions and Training Grants
  Widows' Pensions and Training Grants
  European Social Action
  European Social Action
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Pension Contributions
  Pension Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Health Centre (Enfield)
  Health Centre (Enfield)
  Osteopathy
  Osteopathy
  Incontinence in the Home
  Incontinence in the Home
  Community Nursing Staff (Mileage Allowance)
  Community Nursing Staff (Mileage Allowance)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Multiple Sclerosis (Gluten-free Diets)
  Multiple Sclerosis (Gluten-free Diets)
  Disabled Persons (Environmental Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Environmental Aids)
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education Staff College
  Further Education Staff College
  Museums and Galleries (Charges and Attendances)
  Museums and Galleries (Charges and Attendances)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Further Education
  Further Education
ESTABLISHMENTS OF FULL-TIME FURTHER EDUCATION WITH ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT NOT YET APPROVED
  ENGLAND
  ENGLAND
  WALES
  WALES
  Church School, Hampstead
  Church School, Hampstead
  DEVOLUTION (LEGISLATION)
  DEVOLUTION (LEGISLATION)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  OECD (Secretary-General)
  OECD (Secretary-General)
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Romania
  Romania
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Commonwealth Countries (EEC Association)
  Commonwealth Countries (EEC Association)
TRADE
  "Tudor Prince" (Salvage)
  "Tudor Prince" (Salvage)
  Motor Bicycles (Exports)
  Motor Bicycles (Exports)
  Spain, Israel and Maghreb Countries
  Spain, Israel and Maghreb Countries
  Trade Marks
  Trade Marks
  Export Markets
  Export Markets
  European Economic Community (External Tariff)
  European Economic Community (External Tariff)
  Newcastle and Teesside Airports
  Newcastle and Teesside Airports
  Aluminium Industry
  Aluminium Industry
  COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY VISITS
  COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY VISITS
  BOLSOVER
  BOLSOVER
  BRITISH NUCLEAR TEST
  BRITISH NUCLEAR TEST
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  WASHINGTON
  WASHINGTON
  CBI (MEETING)
  CBI (MEETING)
  PUBLIC SERVICES (STAFF RECRUITMENT)
  PUBLIC SERVICES (STAFF RECRUITMENT)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  HEEL BAR, PADDINGTON (OFFICIAL LETTER)
  HEEL BAR, PADDINGTON (OFFICIAL LETTER)
  INVESTMENT (PRIME MINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE)
  INVESTMENT (PRIME MINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE)
  EEC COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS)
  EEC COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS)
  LONG KESH
  LONG KESH
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY (CHEQUERS CONFERENCE)
  INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY (CHEQUERS CONFERENCE)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Milk
  Milk
  Animal Protein (Recycling Process)
  Animal Protein (Recycling Process)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Meat Exports and Imports
  Meat Exports and Imports
ENERGY
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Natural Gas (Prices)
  Natural Gas (Prices)
  Gas (Metering)
  Gas (Metering)
  Offshore Oil (Pipelines)
  Offshore Oil (Pipelines)
  Electricity Generation (Wave Power)
  Electricity Generation (Wave Power)
ENVIRONMENT
  Motor Cyclists and Scooter Riders
  Motor Cyclists and Scooter Riders
  House Building
  House Building
  M20 (Inquiry)
  M20 (Inquiry)
  Bricks
  Bricks
  A523 (Traffic Flows)
  A523 (Traffic Flows)
  Vinyl Chloride (BCM Gas)
  Vinyl Chloride (BCM Gas)
  Thames Estuary (Oil Refineries)
  Thames Estuary (Oil Refineries)
  Tenancies (Business Premises)
  Tenancies (Business Premises)
  Parish Councils
  Parish Councils
  Lorry Parks
  Lorry Parks
  Rates
  Rates
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Vehicle Testing Stations
  Vehicle Testing Stations
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Control of Pollution Bill
  Control of Pollution Bill
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wrabness Prison Site
  Wrabness Prison Site
  Heathrow (Security Operations)
  Heathrow (Security Operations)
  EEC Nationals
  EEC Nationals
  Charles Rowan House, Finsbury (Police Flats)
  Charles Rowan House, Finsbury (Police Flats)
  IRA (Fund Raising)
  IRA (Fund Raising)
  Summerland Fire
  Summerland Fire
INDUSTRY
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Advance Factories (Wales)
  Austin and Pickersgill
  Austin and Pickersgill
  Advance Factory (Cowlairs)
  Advance Factory (Cowlairs)
  West Midlands and Lancashire
  West Midlands and Lancashire
  Public Ownership
  Public Ownership
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Telephones (Subscriber Trunk Dialling)
  Telephones (Subscriber Trunk Dialling)
  Electrical Engineering and Electronics
  Electrical Engineering and Electronics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Property Development (Taxation)
  Property Development (Taxation)
  Estate Duty (Share Valuation)
  Estate Duty (Share Valuation)
  Energy Taxes (EEC Countries)
  Energy Taxes (EEC Countries)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Textile Companies (Tax)
  Textile Companies (Tax)
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Westminster Parliament
  Westminster Parliament
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
WALES
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Port Dinorwic Bypass
  Glaslyn Estuary, Porthmadog (New Road)
  Glaslyn Estuary, Porthmadog (New Road)
  Roads
  Roads
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Lettings)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Lettings)
  Rates (Payment by Instalments)
  Rates (Payment by Instalments)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Industrial Pollution (Monitoring)
  Industrial Pollution (Monitoring)
  A74 and M74
  A74 and M74
  Road Accidents (A74 and M74)
  Road Accidents (A74 and M74)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

BARONESS FISHER OF REDNAL
Doris Mary Gertrude Fisher, wife of Joseph Fisher, Esquire, having been created Baroness Fisher of Rednal, of Rednal in the City of Birmingham, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Summerskill and the Lord Peddie.
LORD DARLING OF HILLSBOROUGH
The Right Honourable George Darling, having been created Baron Darling of Hillsborough, of Crewe in Cheshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Peddie and the Lord Jacques, and made the solemn Affirmation.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Juries Act,

Prices Act,

Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act,

Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Act,

Crude Oil Terminals (Humber) Act,

Morpeth Common Act,

University of Bristol Act,

Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure,

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure.

POSTAL STAMPS: COMMEMORATIVE ISSUES
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name cn the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why there has been a delay in announcing the commemorative postage stamps to be issued in 1975 and in particular the proposal, approved by the Swiss postal authorities, to have a joint stamp to mark the 50th anniversary of the first Anglo/Swiss ski race in 1925.
The MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, there has been no delay. I am advised that the Post Office aims to announce its annual stamp programme during the summer of the preceding year, but there is no specific date for the announcement. I understand that an Anglo-Swiss ski stamp is one of many proposals put to the Post Office for the 1975 stamp programme.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter passed through the stamp selection committee before the General Election and that the Swiss authorities are totally in favour of such an issue but are awaiting action from the United Kingdom? I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that this matter might be speeded up, because it will be the first time that two nations have co-operated in the issue of a stamp about a subject on which they have co-operated so closely and for so many decades. May I express the hope that the Government of the day will seize this opportunity for co-operation in connection with a sport that is becoming ever more popular and which is worth commemorating?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, My Lords; the noble Lord is quite right. I understand that Switzerland has agreed to issue a special stamp if the Post Office here does likewise. But there are other claims upon the limited number of commemorative stamps that can be issued.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while many of us entirely approve of the sport of

461
ski-ing, we feel that stamps should sometimes be issued to commemorate distinguished scientists of this country, which has rarely been done?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are many claimants. Probably one reason why no statement has been made so far is that there are an exceptional number of claimants this year.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his observations in answering this particular Question are correct? Also, may I ask him to bear in mind what has happened about Keir Hardie and other people? While there is this huge demand for commemorative stamps, the Post Office must make a selection on this subject.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that what my noble friend said is quite right.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, will the noble Lord also bear in mind, before a decision is taken about stamps in general and about commemorative stamps on the Anglo-Swiss ski race in particular, the value of the stamps in the future? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he feels able to consult with his honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Mr. Denis Howell, about the growing participation of young people in this valuable sport? Does he agree that this growing trend, particularly among secondary schools, sponsored by education authorities would be considerably encouraged and increased by the issue of such a stamp?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a stamp advisory committee which considers all these matters, and of course what has been said by noble Lords, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will be taken into account. But the fact still remains that the choice has to be made from among a number of claimants.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not important that this should be seen as a matter of international collaboration between this country and Switzerland? Does not that give a different aspect to the whole matter?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, My Lords, it gives a very different aspect; and, in exactly the same way, every other
462
claimant can also say that they have a very different aspect to their claim.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, are there any other claimants who have this international collaboration aspect?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, some claimants have a strength which arises from other factors.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, due to the gloomy wintery climate in England, a great many people are increasingly coming to Scotland? Is it not also recognised that Scottish people are always particularly welcomed abroad? For those reasons, would the Minister agree that as little delay as possible in a gesture of this kind would be welcome on both sides?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that there should be co-operation between Scotland and England in this matter, then I would agree with him.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend urge the Post Office to try to ensure that these letters reach their destination within a reasonable time of the anniversary they are supposed to commemorate?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very witty observation such as is often made in this House, but it bears no relation to the fact that we still have one of the finest postal services in the world.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that we all recognise that there are many claimants in this field, but this would be a philatelic "first"? It is the first time, as noble Lords from the Liberal Benches have said, that two countries have co-operated in a gesture such as this. Britain has given so much in the way of recreational tradition to the world in soccer, lawn tennis, golf and ski-ing, that surely it is worth commemorating it and reminding young people how much we have contributed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has a good point; he has made it very well and I suggest we leave it there.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, so far as Wales is concerned, would the Minister agree not to have a special stamp, but rather to have free postage?

LAND RECLAMATION
3.4 p.m.
LORD VERNON: 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 initiate research into the desirability of reclaiming for agricultural use the Maplin Sands and other suitable areas of seabed off the shores of the United Kingdom.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, some limited research into the feasibility of land reclamation is undertaken under the auspices of the Natural Environment Research Council. The available evidence indicates clearly that the cost of reclaiming the Maplin Sands and other major seabed areas is disproportionate to the value of such land for agriculture.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that it is rather difficult to reconcile it with the Answer that I was given in a Written Reply that I received, to the effect that no information was available on this subject?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that the Written Answer came from me, then I apologise. I will look again at the Question to see whether I can give him more information. As it is, I can give him quite a lot of information about the use of land and the advantages of developing marshy land, for example, as against that under sea water.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, before the Government finally make up their minds, will they consult the Government of the Netherlands who since the war have reclaimed so much land, to the great advantage of their country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the Maplin Sands are concerned, I understand that to reclaim an area of 8,000 acres about £110 million would be required. In Holland they are dealing with an entirely different situation, with land which at one time was under cultivation, land which is not covered by deep water and land which can be reclaimed
464
by the polder process which would not be possible outside of the Eastern coastline.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the increasing population density of many parts of the British Isles argues for a policy towards coastal land reclamation supported by such Governmental incentives as are now available for those who clear derelict land which is inland?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would not dispute that with the noble Earl. Something has been done; 2,000 acres have been reclaimed from the Wash. The noble Earl ought not overlook what we are doing in the matter of regeneration of grassland on hills. Since January, 1971, 567,000 acres have been treated and brought into full production. In the case of land cleared of scrub and woodland, nearly 41,000 acres have been claimed since 1971. So much is being done to bring more land into cultivation in this country, and it can be done much more effectively with greater cost/benefit than in the case of land beyond our coastline.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I put this further question? Would the Government consider that as a general matter of policy it may be to the British advantage to set in hand a programme to encourage coastline reclamation in the same way as there is a programme to encourage clearance of derelict land in our industrial centres?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there is a case for looking at this and, as I said, a certain amount of research is being done by the Ecological Research Station at Colney in Norfolk. But I ask the noble Earl not to overlook the fact that we are draining about a quarter of a million acres a year; that is equivalent to an area the size of Bedfordshire. Our investment is probably yielding a better return there than it would be in reclaiming land from the sea.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if my noble friend is able to say that the Government do not intend to proceed with the Maplin Airport, will he give consideration to the following proposal: that the original acreage of sea should be reclaimed and used as land, and that that

465
land should then be used either under a town development corporation or by sale of long leaseholds to private enterprise development companies, to create the most beautiful maritime garden city in the world?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no doubt that opens up an interesting prospect, but the supplementary question would be better reserved until after the Statement which I expect will be made later this month about the Maplin project.
LORD MACKIE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that before paying for the reclamation of land it is more important to re-establish confidence among the farmers who are already farming land into which the Government may have put money, without knowing what the price of beef is going to be? Would he agree that perhaps the bottom of the market there is much more important?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very good point. If he cares to put it down on the Order Paper as a Question I will answer it.

PEERS AND PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
3.9 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Lords who previously sat in the House of Commons as M.P.s for over ten years are denied a Parliamentary pension.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, full information is not available, but 52 Peers who left the House of Commons after 1953 fall into this category.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply may I ask whether he is aware that it was Plato, I believe, who said that the first purpose of politics is to secure justice? Is there any justice in my having a pension for 15 years' service when many noble Lords in this House this afternoon have 20 or over 20 years of service and are not in receipt of a pension? I heard
466
recently that my noble friend Lord Brockway does not receive a pension.
A NOBLE LORD: Question!
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, if we paid Lord Brockway 10p for every Question he has asked in this House he would be a millionaire. However, I am prepared to drop the matter because I can tell the Minister that this evening this matter is to be discussed in the highest possible quarters. That will be good news for the victims of this anomaly in this House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend asked me a question about justice. Yes, My Lords; I am sure the House sympathises very much with regard to the anomalies that have arisen as a consequence of the grant of pensions in another place. But I think my noble friend and the House will recall that the Lawrence Committee and the Boyle Committee—the Boyle Committee in particular—reviewed this matter and reached the view that persons who did not participate in a scheme should not receive pension. This is of course in line with general pension policy right through the country, both in public and in private pension schemes.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while declaring a personal interest, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I was a Member of the House of Commons for 34 unbroken years, that I paid my contributions to the pensions fund, and that my present pension is nil?—I do not get a penny. And is not the noble Lord also aware that this scandal would not be permitted in any other known democracy in the world and ought to be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which the noble Lord has declared his interest in this particular matter, because I can remember this Question's being put down and previous Leaders of the House being required to answer it. But, whatever sympathy one may have here, it is a question of whether one should act. As a consequence of the two Reports I have referred to, and also of general pensions practice in public and in private pension schemes, it would seem to be wrong to

467
provide out of public money for ex-Members of Parliament a service which is not available to any other individual.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I happen to know a little more about this than do some other noble Lords—that Members of your Lordships' House who retired after having served for ten years or more were qualified, but disqualified on grounds of age? They had not reached the retiring age which would entitle them to pension. In regard to Members of your Lordships' House who qualified because of length of service (as in the case of my noble friend Lord Boothby, and many others) but who retired before they reached the qualifying age, would it be possible for their service in your Lordships' House to be taken into account to qualify them for the pension?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will carefully consider what my noble friend has said. I would put only one further point to the House in this respect. We are not of course a House which has any control over public funds. I should have thought that if a real sense of injustice exists, which I personally recognise, it is for another place to take account of it. Furthermore, I should have thought that if there is to be pressure on the Government on this matter steps should be taken to ensure that Ministers in another place, and the other place as a whole, are aware of the sense of injustice.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, may I preface my question by stating that I am not one of those involved? In any discussions which take place on this matter, would not my noble friend agree that it is relevant to consider the fact that those who did not qualify for a pension and yet have given a great deal of service were Members of Parliament when the salary was extremely low, when there was no allowance for postage and when there was no allowance for secretarial help, and j that Members of Parliament in those days were working for a pittance and giving a good deal of their lives and now receive no pension whatsoever?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not disagree with my noble friend. That is history. It was in 1965 and again in 1972 that this situation was
468
recognised and the House of Commons took the necessary steps.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, while recognising the constitutional point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made, may I ask whether the noble Lord would regard it as illegitimate for the sentiment to be ventilated in this House that this could all be put right in financial terms which would be pure "chicken feed"—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in your; Lordships' House I am aware of only one thing that is illegitimate. The noble Lord has put a question to me. I will consider it. But I think the fact of the matter is still that if this is to be put right i it is for the House of Commons to be so persuaded.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while accepting my noble friend's reply, may I ask whether it is not essential that he as Leader of the House should at least put the point that Members of Parliament come to this House in consequence of the valuable service they have rendered (as did the noble Lord, Lord Boothby) in the other place? Is it not important in taking up the cause to emphasise that they might well have remained in the other place but felt it their duty to accept elevation to this House so that they could continue their duties here?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, why a Member comes from another place to your Lordships' House is a matter for his own decision, and I would not wish to speculate on the various reasons why ex-Members of Parliament come to your Lordships' House. I still suggest that this is a matter for the House of Commons. I cannot help but reflect, in view of the pressure that is being placed upon me this afternoon, that I can look around your Lordships' House and see a number of colleagues who have served in this House for some 20-odd years without a salary and certainly with no pension to come at the end of their service.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, leaving aside the merits and demerits of this claim, would not the noble Lord agree that he was not entirely right in the way he suggested that the general principle under which public and private insurance schemes work in this country—that is to say, on the contribution record

469
with benefit varying according to contributions—was ever expected to apply to this case, where one contribution entitled a Member to the full pension?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the case I was seeking to make is that I am not aware of any pension scheme which would apply to a person who did not participate in the scheme. That is the difficulty which is confronting us this afternoon in the case that is being made for those Members of Parliament who served in another place but who left another place before October 16, 1964. But, in the light of the pressure that is being placed upon me, and as has been the case on previous occasions with other Leaders of the House, I will ensure that the appropriate Minister has his attention drawn to the points which have been made this afternoon.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I put one final and very brief point? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that this demand is not confined to Members of this House, but applies to any man or woman who was a Member of Parliament for ten years or more, and what we claim is that they all deserve a pension?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, again that is a point which I shall take into account.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, as one who has been a Member of your Lordships' House for some 53 years, could I be considered a special case?

MENTAL ILLNESS: AFTERCARE
3.20 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much research has been carried out to ascertain appropriate forms of care and rehabilitation of discharged patients from mental hospitals.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a great deal of relevant work has been carried out in the past twenty years both in this country and overseas which has made a real contribution to the under-
470
standing of the problems of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. A number of projects supported financially bv the Government, some in progress and others completed, relate to the services needed by patients discharged from mental hospitals. In addition, the Government are sponsoring the evaluation of major mental illness developments both at Worcester and at Southampton. In the case of the mentally handicapped, an experiment in total care supervision is being developed in Sheffield.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that most encouraging reply which shows the concern of Her Majesty's Government, may I ask whether he is aware of the, apparently, many cases of lack of consultation between hospitals and local authorities which result in unfavourable accommodation being found for discharged patients from mental hospitals who are unable to return to live with families, relatives or friends?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the House will remember that in my reply of July 3 to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, I said that the Government were fully aware of the present deficiencies in the social services in providing for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. On that occasion I pointed out that there are many local authorities in the country who wish to develop educational, residential and occupational facilities. But the question is one of money and, as your Lordships know, it is necessary for local authorities to obtain loan sanction from the Department of Health and Social Security. Many local authorities have been given that loan sanction, but at the present moment the demand is far greater than the supply of money. What the noble Lord has said is perfectly true, but we are hoping that eventually we may be able to keep pace with the demand to provide these facilities.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the criticism of the social services, many of us believe that the treatment of mental patients in this country is still second to none? Would he therefore bring to the attention of the Ministry concerned the importance to discharged women patients of being sent out into the world in a dress

471
that fits and with a hair-do that makes them feel like other women? So far as male patients are concerned, there ought to be expenditure on a good suit. Nothing is better for improving the morale of a man or a woman on discharge than to feel that they are wearing good clothes and look good. A hair-do or a good suit would do more for a patient than many people think.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said, but I should like to assure the House that far more is being done for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped than perhaps many people in the community realise. The stay in mental hospitals to-day is considerably less than it was a few years ago.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although the standard of treatment of mental patients in this country may be high, we have to give the honours to those across the Border? The quality of treatment of mental patients in Scotland is probably the best in the world.

HUNTERSTON
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Hughes will be making a Statement on developments at Hunterston.
OLD LONDON ROAD, HYTHE, BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE JEWS (GOLDERS GREEN) BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION ORDER 1974
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1974, laid before the House on June 25, be approved. The noble and learned Lord "aid: My Lords, the draft Order before t you has the merit of brevity and simplicity. Since 1846, when the county courts were first established, successive County Courts Acts have contained provisions defining the jurisdiction of the county courts by placing an upper limit upon the value of claims which may be brought in them. These limits have always recognised that the county courts j were designed as district courts, reasonably accessible to local communities throughout the country, where comparatively small civil claims could be pursued under a relatively simple and expeditious procedure, without incurring the expense and greater length of time involved in litigating in the High Court. The High Court was preferably reserved for the pursuit of larger and more complex claims requiring the greater judicial experience and expertise of a High Court Judge.
The steady erosicn of the value of money since the time when the county courts were first established has made it necessary progressively to raise the monetary limits of the county court jurisdiction to take account of it. In 1846 the upper limit of the county court jurisdiction in contract and tort cases was £20. This was raised to £50 in 1888, £100 in 1903, £200 in 1938, £400 in 1955 and £500 in 1966. The last time when this limit was raised was in 1970, when the jurisdiction of the county courts in contract and tort claims was brought up to its present level of £750. Since 1970, alas, the value of money has fallen by approximately one-third, and the purpose of the draft Order now before your Lordships is to reflect this fall in the value of money by raising the existing upper limit of the jurisdiction of the county courts in claims in contract and tort from £750 to £1,000.
For the same purpose, the draft Order also makes certain consequential changes to other monetary limits provided for in the County Courts Act in its present form.

473
The amount which a plaintiff proceeding in the High Court must recover in order to be entitled to costs in the High Court scale is raised from £500 to £650, and the amount which such a plaintiff must recover in order to recover any costs at all is raised from £100 to £150. The draft Order also provides for the jurisdiction of county court registrars to be raised from £75 to £100, in order to keep the registrar's jurisdiction in balance with the new level of that of the judges.
The actual volume of judicial work which is likely to be transferred from the High Court to the county courts as a result of this Order is not very great. The number of writs for actions issued annually out of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court which fall within the new proposed jurisdiction of the county courts—that is to say, those which lie in the bracket between £750 and £1,000—is approximately 18,000. Even if all these cases were transferred to the county courts, the increase in their work would not be significant in a context in which they arc already dealing with some one and a half million plaints a year. Only a small proportion of these are likely to come to trial. Of all the actions commenced in the Queen's Bench Division only about 1½ per cent, are actually tried—a very happy state of affairs, otherwise the burden upon the courts themselves would be intolerably heavy. The overwhelming majority of actions are either dealt with summarily, settled out of court, or withdrawn. As to the raising of the registrars' jurisdiction, the effect of this again will not increase the overall work-load of the registrars by a significant amount.
Your Lordships may ask why, since we may in the future possibly have to face further falls in the value of our money, we do not anticipate that unhappy prospect to some extent by raising the county court jurisdiction above the new proposed limit of £1,000, to, say, £1,250 or £1,500. There are clearly arguments in favour of that. But there is one overriding consideration which militates against it. This consideration lies in the field of costs. The upper scale of county court costs is already not far below the High Court scale, so that if the county court jurisdiction was raised significantly above £i 000 it would be necessary to fix the upper limits of the county court
474
costs at levels which would invade the High Court scale, and thus require a complete upwards revision of the High Court scale; otherwise the overlapping of the two scales would mean that there would be no saving of costs by suing in the county courts.
I should, I think, refer to one last consequence of the draft Order; namely, its effect upon the present useful provisions for arbitration in the county courts. The consequence of raising the jurisdiction of registrars from £75 to £100 will be to raise by a similar amount the present limits upon a claim which a registrar may, on his own authority and without need to obtain a judge's consent, refer to himself as arbitrartor under the new arbitration procedure.
Noble Lords may wish to know that before this draft Order was laid the principal official bodies affected by it were fully consulted. Among those whose views were sought were the Bar Council, The Law Society, the Council of Circuit Judges, the Association of County Court Registrars, and the Under Sheriffs' Association—so that the ground has indeed been well traversed. I am happy to say that the principle underlying this Order; namely, that the jurisdiction of the county courts should be raised in order to reflect the fall in the value of money, has proved without exception to be acceptable to all those whose opinion was sought. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1974, laid before the House on June 25, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I anticipate that the House will be prepared without very much discussion to give assent to what the noble and learned Lord has just proposed, and I think I can say without much hesitation that had affairs been different I should have taken the same course. The immediate proposal is of | course acceptable on the grounds that the noble and learned Lord has stated; namely, that it is really only rather tardily following in the wake of the erosion in the value of money which has been constant and increasing. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord is really only running up a moving staircase which is running

475
down, and what has been done is rather less than to preserve the status quo.
There are two comments which I should like to make, one of which relates to what the noble and learned Lord has said and one of which relates to what he did not say. As regards the first, it is of course true that quite apart from the erosion in the value of money, which is the principal reason why the noble and learned Lord has progressed from £750 to £1,000, the jurisdiction of the county court has been immensely increased in area since both of us went to the Bar. On the whole, this has been a matter of great advantage, particularly to those who live in the Provinces. I myself would have seen no overriding objection to raising the county court limit higher than the noble and learned Lord has seen fit to do. It is of course true that that would have led to some overlap with High Court costs, but in simple cases there would still have been considerable advantage in suing in the county court, both on the grounds of proximity and on the grounds of convenience to parties and witnesses.
The other comment I want to make—and I think this is an appropriate moment to make it—is that my own conviction, as a result of my experiences in the office which the noble and learned Lord now holds, has been that the whole business of High Court and county court jurisdiction is really ripe for a development analogous to that which we carried out three years ago on the criminal jurisdiction of the Assizes and quarter sessions. There is, really an overwhelming case for amalgamating the two jurisdictions and assigning cases to a district court or to a central court with a suitable judge, not on the basis of the level of the claim only, but on the basis of convenience or difficulty. We have come a very long way since 1846 when the county court was started in its present form and the old £20 claim, because on any view of inflation the development in the value of money has not been of that order.
I think the time has really come when the Lord Chancellor's office ought to consider carefully whether an exercise comparable to that caried out in the Courts Act 1971 ought to be carried out in relation to our civil jurisdiction, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider that suggestion carefully. I believe
476
that many ancillary advantages would be found, although a great deal of work would be involved, both in the preliminary inquiries and consultations, and in the difficulties which, necessarily, always accompany a structural change. I am happy to commend this Motion to the House, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take account of what I have said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR. My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his acceptance and welcome of this Order. The difficulty about raising the figure of jurisdiction is its impact on costs, but it is a matter to which we gave consideration. As to the suggestion that the time may now be ripe to review the respective functions of the civil court, I will certainly take that suggestion on board and we will examine the matter. Since the Courts Act was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, there has been a very great improvement in the criminal field and it may be that there are useful lessons to be learned in the civil field as well. We are grateful for the suggestion.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I have only a simple question to put to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. From his observations and his anticipations of a future erosion in the value of money—which I am sure none of us would wish to contradict—it follows that from now onwards, as the value of money deteriorates by, say, 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, in the next twelve months, the area covered by the present Order will be altered. Without committing myself at all to the fashionable nostrum of universal indexation I should like to inquire whether thought has been given to attaching a figure to an easily constructible index number, which would obviate the necessity for introducing a similar Order in twelve months' time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. The difficulty, as I said, is that the jurisdictional figure is linked with the costs figure, which presents certain problems. One does not want to see an unnecessary upturn in the costs side because of an increase in the jurisdictional side, but we will certainly look at the suggestion. The declining value of money presents us all with a kind of stone of Sisyphus—we

477
never quite cope with the situation—but this is the best we can do at the moment without causing a substantial increase in the costs of litigation, which I am sure noble Lords would not welcome.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, with the deepest respect to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I suggest to your Lordships that every additional thing which is subjected to indexation—which I think is the new word and which is directly related to increases in the cost of living—is just one more brick in the edifice of continuing inflation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HUNTERSTON: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
3.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about his proposals for development at Hunterston. I must apologise for the length of the Statement which is as follows:
" With permission, I should like to inform the House of my proposals for Hunterston. A fuller statement of the strategy the Government will adopt, together with the conclusions I have reached on the planning applications now before me have been placed in the Library.
" My principal concern is to ensure that the limited area of flat land at Hunterston is used by industries which both require access to exceptionally deep water and will make a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. Nothing less would justify the serious environment sacrifice which is inevitably involved. Three major industrial uses have so far emerged as candidates for the use of the site: steel, oil refineries and gravity platform construction for North Sea Oil development.
"I deal first with steel. Present plans envisage the expansion of the steel industry in Scotland by some 25 per cent, over the next 10 years. I am glad to tell the House that the British Steel Corporation has now decided to
478
build a direct reduction plant at Hunterston, the first of its kind in Britain, which will produce 400,000 metric tonnes a year of iron feed for the electric arc furnaces in Scotland and elsewhere. The cost of this will be around £15 to £20 million. In addition, work has started on the construction of the iron ore terminal at Hunterston, and together these two projects amount to a commitment of £55 to £60 million in steel industry development on the peninsula. Hunterston is also one of the sites in the West of Scotland under consideration for the Corporation's new electric arc plant announced in the White Paper on the Ten Year Development Stategy for Steel, plans for which are nearing completion. Together with the developments at Ravenscraig, these new projects wll give Scotland a total stcelmaking capacity in modern plant of 4½ million metric tonnes.
" I consider it essential that sufficient land remains available at Hunterston for longer-term steel development additional to these projects. The continued growth of this industry is essential to a large part of Scotland's industrial economy, and Hunterston is without doubt one of the best sites available for future steel development in North-West Europe. Not to safeguard sufficient space for this purpose would be a serous failure to accept our responsibility for the future.
" The next category of industry is oil refineries. Following a public inquiry in 1970 my predecessor decided against zoning land for a refinery at Hunterston on the application then submitted by Chevron. I now have before me revised applications by both Chevron and ORSI. My predecessor's memorandum of May 30 last year indicated that, although a refinery on its own was unlikely to be acceptable, the case for one could be considered if it was associated with other developments which would together bring substantial benefit to the Scottish economy. In particular, it was suggested that a refinery might be associated with steel development if refinery gas were supplied on attractive terms to meet the requirements of a direct reduction plan. However, the British Steel Corporation have now told me that they no longer see any significant advantage in this form of energy

479
supply as compared with the natural gas which will shortly be available from the North Sea. Furthermore, I am now advised that future steel developments, particularly an integrated basic oxygen plant and the finishing processes that might be associated with it, could need some of the land which is now the subject of the refinery applications.
" I have also had to pay special attention to the conclusions now reached by the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee after a very lengthy and thorough study. The Committee's Report suggests that provided certain stringent safeguards on siting, design, construction and operation of the installations were strictly observed a refinery would not be incompatible with requirements to safeguard the two nuclear power stations already on the peninsula. My concern is first for life and property in the area, including any risk to a major source of electric power supply to the Scottish economy; and, secondly, to permit no development at Hunterston which could subsequently constitute an unduly inhibiting effect upon further development of land for which the site is specially suited. I have therefore concluded that I should be only justified in permitting refinery development, with all the safeguarding requirements this would entail, if there were overriding reasons for the Hunterston site being chosen for such development. I am not persuaded that such reasons exist.
" I therefore have it in mind to reject both applications, but I do so with regret, and in full recognition of the scale of the developments themselves, 'the substantial projects associated with them and of their potential for future development in the economy.
" Finally, I come to the question of oil platform sites. The rapid growth in the volume of proven North Sea oil reserves and the urgent need for the United Kingdom to reduce her dependence upon imported supplies have created a pressing demand for gravity production platforms for this new industry. Substantial benefits would be derived both for Scottish industry and employment and for the United Kingdom balance of payment from suitable construction sites. I have
480
already a planning application for the construction of these platforms at Hunterston and other projects are expected to follow. This type of development is not incompatible with the long-term use of land for the steel industry and recent studies indicate that Hunterston could well provide good sites for gravity platform construction. Accordingly, I have decided that land should be available for this purpose at Hunterston, and further work is in hand to settle the detailed siting and appropriate scale of development.
" Those who get orders for platform construction must do so on their merits and not simply because they have access to a site. I intend, therefore, to ensure that the Hunterston sites will be available only to firms who obtain orders, and I propose to enter into consultations with Ayr County Council and with the Hunterston Development Company to discuss these matters.
" I have reached these conclusions on the most careful examination of all the evidence now before me. I am to meet Ayr County Council on July 26 to receive their views and to consider action before further planning decisions are taken. My Department are writing to Chevron and ORSI today informing them of my conclusions and inviting their comments prior to my finally deciding their applications."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON:My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for repeating to this House his right honourable friend's most important and interesting Statement. I have one or two questions to ask, and the first one deals with the construction of platforms at Hunterston. I am sure all noble Lords fully appreciate the need for such constructions, but I think one must express concern lest this decision is going to inhibit the future use of this area for navigational purposes. There are other deep-sea areas around the coast of Scotland which could possibly be used' for the construction platforms. There is no suitable deep-sea area likely to be suitable for navigational purposes near such an important site, and in the

481
day of the super tanker that is the first point to put to the noble Lord.
My Lords, the next point made by the noble Lord dealt with the turning down by his right honourable friend of the refinery construction at Hunterston. I fully appreciate the cogent reasons given in the Statement for this, but I should like the noble Lord to assure the House that this is part of an overall planning matter dealing with the refinery, and not just a piecemeal decision dealing with Hunterston. Therefore, taking it as being part of a larger picture, can the noble Lord say what progress is being made on the Stewarton refinery near Hunterston? Also, what is the latest information we have on the plan by B.P. to double the output of the refinery at Grangemouth? If we had more knowledge on the plans for Stewarton and Grangemouth, we might be able to see more clearly the general picture of the action taken by the Government on this matter.
I must congratulate the Government on, and also welcome, that part of the Statement dealing with steel. The news that there is to be a direct reduction plant will be welcomed by all. I also welcome the news that the steel capacity of Scotland is to be built up to 4½ million tonnes. As noble Lords will be aware, when we were in government at the end of 1972, we promised to do this as well. I am glad that it is going to be done. While on the subject of steel, and I apologise for asking so many questions, can we be told whether there is any more news of the iron ore pelletisation plant which has recently ben mooted for Hunterston?
3.55 p.m.
LORD MACKIE OF BENSHIE: My Lords, we welcome the news that a decision has been taken to erect a steel reduction plant at Hunterston, and even more do we welcome the news that extra land will be kept for further development. This is particularly welcome. Can the noble Lord tell the House when this is likely to start? The Statement mentions that work has commenced on the iron ore terminal, but when is a start likely to be made on the plant? With reference to oil refineries, can the noble Lord tell us whether he is seeking to site these refineries elsewhere? Is all possible help being given to those companies to site the refineries in other parts of Scotland?
482
With reference to platform construction, this is an excellent move which appears to be moving towards some form of central planning in platform construction, taking into account the dangers to navigation. May I ask the noble Lord how many platforms can be built in that area? Will this take off the pressure from areas of great natural beauty like Drumbuie? Would the Government be prepared to spend money on dredging and other works to enable them to site the platforms in this area, thus preventing the ruining of areas of great natural beauty? This means that a great deal of work is going on around Hunterston. Is the noble Lord satisfied that in that area, which is near Glasgow, the infrastructure will stand the increase in work? We do not want the social mess that is going on round Tain, Invergordon and elsewhere which has totally swamped the infrastructure; the large number of jobs has made for the moment a social desert of the area. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the area can take the hoped-for increase in the number of jobs?
3.58 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may follow the usual procedure and reply first to the two Front Bench spokesmen, I am grateful to them for the way in which they have received this very important Statement. I apologised for the length of the Statement, but I think that noble Lords will appreciate that to deal with three subjects of such great importance to Scotland could not have been done in a few words.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked questions on steel, refineries and on production platforms. If I might deal with these, first of all on the question of refineries (and to some extent this deals with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie), the Secretary of State will be making an announcement very soon on refinery capacity. This will be the occasion for answering these questions. With reference to steel, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked about the private development which is projected. This will have to be examined in detail, but a direct reduction plant, which produces iron feed from ore, need not be in competition with the British Steel

483
Corporation; so it is possible for them to live together.
On the subject of production platforms, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked how many sites there would be at Hunterston. It seems that there could be at least two sites; even more might be possible. Of course, all this must be examined in depth. So far as the effects on Drumbuie are concerned, I appreciate the tremendous interest there is in this, but I cannot possibly at this stage anticipate what the Secretary of State may decide. He has just recently received the Report of the Inquiry and is considering what is to be done there.
On the subject of navigation, which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, raised, I can assure him that the development which we have in mind for the platform sites will not impede navigation in any way, and suitable warnings to shipping will be given in advance. So far as the Stewarton refinery is concerned, I may say that there are no plans for that at the present time. The final point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was on the question of infrastructure. I think I can sum it up by asking whether we are to repeat all the unsatisfactory conditions which have taken place elsewhere having regard to what the state of the land is at the present time and what it might be once the development gets under way? The best I can say is that we hope we can learn from previous mistakes and not necessarily repeat them all.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are disturbed by the fact that these decisions in the energy field are being taken on an ad hoc basis? Will the Government consider the possibility of establishing a standing planning inquiry commission on energy matters so that a consistent policy can be evolved?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not certain it will be done exactly in the form for which my noble friend asks, but I can assure him that in the very near future a Statement will be made which will put matters in a much better perspective than they are at the present time.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? We have steel and we do not have oil at Hunterston; that will leave a considerable area of the peninsular presumably not required for industry. Could the noble Lord give some assurance that that area, possibly to the South of the peninsular, could be re-zoned for agriculture at the earliest possible moment. The dislocation of the lives of the farming community of that area over the last six years has been quite appalling; they have never known whether to plant their potatoes or what to do. Some firm decision must be made on what remains of the area when the allocation has been made for the steel industry.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would suggest to the noble Earl that he might wish to consult the very detailed Statement, which will be available in the Library, and after reading it he might feel that it might be of advantage to himself and to the House to put down a specified Question on the subject.
THE EARL OF LAUDERALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions arising out of the Statement, which we all welcome in general. Can he tell us on what basis the site or sites considered suitable for gravity platform construction will be made available to firms that have a firm order? My second question is with regard to refinery policy; can he assure us that the desirability of welcoming to this country—in suitable places—service refineries which will export their products to the United States has not been excluded from consideration. Finally, are we to understand that the project for private enterprise pelletising plant is still, in fact, quite open?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the answer to the third question is, yes. Could the noble Earl remind me of his first question?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I asked about the terms on which the sites could be made available to gravity platform construction firms who have a firm order.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is a little early to say. As the Statement said, the sites would be made available not to people who would hawk around

485
to get orders, but to people who have got orders. It would be easy perhaps to say first come first served, but obviously one must have regard to what will be the best use of the sites. We must wait and find out exactly what will be the most advantageous method of allocating these sites, so that the best use of them can be made in Scotland's interest. The noble Earl's second question was?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My second question was about the consideration of the desirability of encouraging the establishment of service refineries in suitable parts of Britain so that products can be exported to the United States.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I said that there would very soon be a Statement by the Secretary of State for Energy in relation to refinery policy. I would suspect that that Statement would be repeated in your Lordships' House and I would be surprised if the noble Earl did not repeat the question then with the prospect of getting a more satisfactory answer than he can get from me just now.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, are we to understand that the Government have decided to take over the platform construction sites and lease them to constructors, or is the method of making them available still an open question?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the answer to the second part of the question is. Yes.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, as a commissioner on the Hunterston local inquiry hearing the appeals of local inhabitants, may I ask the Government whether they have really taken any account of those appeals? We made very strong recommendations, and, of course, the Inquiry was only about the actual oil terminal. Have the Government taken into consideration the recommendations we made that this oil terminal was to be screened by various means and the least disturbance caused? We now hear that we are to have oil terminals, we are to have platforms built, rigs built. I feel that the Government have been rather highhanded in this with regard to the local inhabitants. What is the point in having
486
these inquiries if we make recommendations and the Government take no notice of them? There are plenty of places in the Western Highlands where there is very deep water in which the platforms can be built. My point is that I think the Government have completely dismissed the recommendations of the Inquiry and the wishes of the local inhabitants.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord reminds me of the days when I was in local government and one of the most difficult problems was trying to find a site for a public convenience. Everybody recognised the necessity for it, but everybody wanted it somewhere else. The same applies to industrial development on virgin sites; everybody accepts that this is very necessary for the economy of Scotland, provided that somebody else gets all the disadvantages and they share in the advantages. I can assure the noble Viscount that the Secretary of State, as was his duty, took into account all the evidence given to Inquiries; he will not depart from that. As every Inquiry is necessary, because they start off with totally conflicting views, it must inevitably follow that when a decision is reached some people are more pleased than others.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the Minister referred to a new steel industry in Scotland. May I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that in Mauretania in Africa we have a good friend—they have huge iron ore deposits—and that in the consortium there is a 19 per cent. British holding? At the moment, we are fortunate in having as a guest in this country, His Excellency, the Mauretanian Ambassador who is on an official visit from Paris. In view of these circumstances, would it be possible to consider increasing our imports of iron ore from that part of Africa?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward a very interesting piece of information. It does not directly arise from this Statement, but I am certain it will be of interest to my right honourable friends if they are not already aware of it. I will certainly make sure that their attention is drawn to what was said.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—because, I as he knows, I am involved in this question of oil in Ross and Cromarty—whether he would please impress upon his honourable friends in another place to let us have a directive as soon as possible regarding the overall requirements for the siting of oil refineries.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this sounds another very useful question to put after the Statement on oil refinery policy is made.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government will publish a list of sites apart from Hunterston which they would approve for oil rig construction and, if so, when?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, My Lords, soon.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind us as to the area of land that is to be taken over for these various purposes? Can he further say how it is to be acquired, and who is to own it in the future?
LORD HUGHES: No, My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to those questions. I am quite certain that that is ' because the noble Lord, with his usual ingenuity, has produced a supplementary for which I have not been briefed in advance. If he will put it down as a specific Question, I am quite certain that I shall be placed in the position of being able to answer correctly, rather than guess at it at the moment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the preference by the Steel Corporation for the use of North Sea gas, rather than gas from the refinery, is due to the difference in the quality of the gas or to other reasons?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this was a technical decision made by the British Steel Corporation. I have no doubt that they have consulted their own best interests in this matter, which will probably be the interests of Scotland generally in that, presumably, they wish to produce the end product at the lowest possible price.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question about the acreage of land that is to be retained for future use by the British Steel Corporation? Can my noble friend tell me how many acres will be involved, and when it is anticipated by the British Steel Corporation that they will use this land?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the immediate requirements for the projects that have been indicated are of the order of 400 acres, but the total which might be required could be of the order of 1,500 acres. It may be a number of years before all of these projects can be finalised. This is why my right honourable friend considers it important that the land should not be put to use in the interval on a short-term basis which would in any way prejudice the long-term need for this land for steel purposes. The order of time during which these projects might be developed would probably be somewhere around 10 years.
THS EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, arising out of that last answer, and while welcoming the news of the steel reduction plant, may I ask the noble Lord to be a little more precise on the timetable? If the British Steel Corporation is to take 10 years or more to get down to work, will they allow others to participate in some part of the work?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hope that I did not give the impression that it would be 10 years before anything started. I talked about a 10-year duration for these decisions. The decisions that have been taken will be started very soon indeed, and the construction time is of the order of three years in each case.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, while adding my congratulations that the Government have now come to this very important decision which has been pending for so many years, might I put in a small plea that the Government will not forget that there are other parts of Scotland where Hunterston steel and oil play no part, and where large industrial developments are being planned? I am thinking of my own area of Tweedbank. I hope that the noble Lord, who also lives in an area where steel and oil do not necessarily operate, will see that those of us on

489
whom what is being done in Hunterston has very little effect at all, will not be forgotten in the development plans for Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my own desires in these matters coincide with those of the noble Baroness, and, as she is aware, I disagree with her only if it is absolutely essential that I should do so. Our interests coincide and, if possible, I will see that they are not forgotten.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are plenty of deep sea sites in Wales? Will he not forget Wales as well?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, as I said in reply to a question the other day from my noble friend Lord Maelor, we have enough trouble without my going to Wales looking for it.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.15 p.m.
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.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amount of improvement grant].
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 10, leave out (" works of repair and replacement") and insert ("improvement works ").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will have noticed that there are a considerable number of Amendments to this Bill, but I assure you that all of them are drafting in character. The first of these—and Amendment No. 2 is on the same subject—is a purely drafting Amendment to correct an error made when the other place amended this rather
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("works of repair and replacement") and insert ("improvement works ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Conditions to be observed with respect to houses in respect of which an improvement grant has been made, and registration thereof]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 12, leave out (" housing association ") and insert ("registered housing association ").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 19 all deal with the same subject. They are purely drafting Amendments. Because the provisions for the registering of housing associations are contained in the Housing Bill it was not possible, according to convention, to refer in the Scottish Bill to "registered housing associations" until the English Bill was before this House. It is now in order to do so, and therefore the Amendments are tabled. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert ("; and "registered "has the same meaning as in section 111(2) of the Housing Act 1974.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Declaration of housing action areas for improvement]:
4.19 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 5 is a drafting Amendment to achieve consistency of wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, leave out ("will") and insert (" shall ").—(Lord Hughes.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I hesitate to intervene in a Scottish Bill, and I recognise that our common language is not always

491
used in exactly the same way in Scotland and in England, but it seems to me that this search for consistency results in a piece of very bad grammar. The purpose of this subsection is to state that certain things shall be done, the effect of which is that "the houses in the area" will meet the standard. That seems to me to be the ordinary English expression, not that the houses in the area shall meet the standard. That is the effect of the action taken on the first of the subsections which is quite correctly expressed as "shall" because it is the authoritative future, but the "will" is just a perfectly ordinary future saying that as a result of the action taken the houses will meet that standard. Will the noble Lord consider looking again at this point between now and Report stage?
LORD HUGHES: I hesitate to enter into a disputation with the noble Viscount on the question of which is the better grammar, either in England or in Scotland. But, on the off chance that he may be right—which I think is more likely—and rather than making this Amendment and then returning to the matter at a later stage, I shall beg leave to withdraw it with the permission of the Committee, so that we may re-examine it and decide whether the draftsman's first thoughts were more grammatically correct than his second. If it should turn out that it is desirable to follow his second line, I will re-table the Amendment at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 15, line 29, leave out from (" area ") to the end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: I should draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 6. It leaves out the words "or shall be brought up to." When I looked at my brief this morning I found that the purpose of Amendment No. 6 was to remove some superfluous words. But when I compared it with the Bill, I discovered that there were a number of other words which could be regarded as superfluous. Working on the basis that it is always desirable, to take out many unnecessary words rather than a few, I tabled the manuscript Amendment No. 5A which,
492
therefore, takes the place of Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Declaration of housing action areas for demolition and improvement.]
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 7 is consequential on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out from ("area") to the end of line 22 and insert (" shall meet that standard ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Local authority may control occupation of houses in housing action area.]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 30, line 12, leave out (" any ") and insert (" that ").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 serve the same purpose. They are drafting Amendments, consequential on Amendments made to the clause at Report stage in another place. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 13, after ("house") insert (" or any other house ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 30, line 31, at end insert ("in relation to any house affected by any of the following events, that is to say ")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment intended to make clear the circumstances in which a control of Occupation Order ceases to have effect. I should perhaps read the text. As drafted, the subsection merely lists five cases in which the Order ceases to operate. The Amendment recognises that there are some cases in which the

493
Order ceases to apply to individual houses and others in which it ceases to apply to all the houses in respect of which it was originally made. As the Bill stands, if the local authority, at the final resolution stage, decide that one house should be improved rather than demolished, that decision would lead to the lifting of the Control of Occupation Order from all the houses which it covered. The Amendments ensure that in those circumstances the Order would be lifted only from the house affected by the local authority's decision. I beg to move.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Could we have the Amendment read to us, because on the paper I have the writing know what it is all about.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I apologise to the noble Lord. I will read out the Amendment again. Amendment proposed—
"Page 30, line 31, at end insert ("in relation to any house affected by any of the following events, that is to say").
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the Lord Chairman.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Obligations of local authorities in relation to rehousing in housing action areas.]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 31, line 9, leave out (" a local ") and insert (" and where a local authority are under a duty by virtue of section 36 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 to rehouse him, the ")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to tidy up the clause which was introduced at Report stage in another place in response to discussions in Standing Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Application to sheriff for possession where house is identified in accordance with section 20(1) as read with section 18(4)(a).]
4.26 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("two") and insert (" four ").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 all serve the same purpose. These Amendments give a longer period of notice to tenants who have to vacate their houses either permanently or temporarily as a result of an Order granted by the sheriff under the provisions of Part III of the Bill. Amendment No. 12 substitutes for the minimum period of two weeks the minimum period of four weeks. The next Amendment increases the period to not more than six weeks instead of not more than four weeks. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 33, leave out ("four") and insert (" six ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Application to sherifj for possession where house is identified in accordance with section 20(1) as read with section 18(4)(b)]:
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 14 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 11, leave out ("two") and insert (" four ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequences of breach of conditions under s. 9.):
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are drafting Amendments intended to make clear exactly how much of the grant a local authority recovers when conditions are breached. The first Amendment, No. 15, provides that if the grant was originally paid in instalments, the interest which the local authority recovers, in addition to the grant, is calculated from

495
the date on which the final instalment is paid. The second Amendment, No. 16, provides that where the local authority choose to recover the "appropriate amount" it should also recover interest on that amount calculated from the date of payment of the grant or of the final instalment of the grant, as the case may be. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 9, leave out (" the sum ") and insert (" the grant, or where the grant was paid in instalments, from the date of the final settlement of the balance ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 28, after ("outstanding") insert (", together with interest thereon for the period from the date of payment of the grant or, where the grant was paid in instalments from the date of payment of the final settlement by the authority to the date of repayment of the appropriate amount to the authority ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
4.29 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are consequential on Amendments introduced at Report stage in another place to stiffen penalties for offences under Clause 35. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert:
(" 6. In section 21, for the words from ("to a fine ") to the end of the section there shall be substituted "—

(i) to a fine not exceeding £400, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction in respect of those premises or any other premises to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment; and

(ii) in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine of £5 for every day or part of a day on which he so uses those premises, or permits them to be so used, after conviction ".").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:
(" 12. In section 181(4), for the words from (" to a fine ") to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted "—

(a) to a fine not exceeding £400, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction in respect of that building or house or any other building or house to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment; and

(b) in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of £5 for every day, or part of a day, on which the occupation continues after conviction ".").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES: I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 26, at end add—
(" (e) in subsection (8), at the end there shall be added:
' and "housing association" means a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Act 1974 '.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

PAKISTAN BILL
4.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This, My Lords, is a short Bill, and its purpose is to extend the transitional period during which voting rights, given to certain citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Act of last year, may be enjoyed. These voting rights depend upon applications for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies being determined by the qualifying date for the 1975 electoral register; namely, October 10 this year. In the event, for administrative reasons, it has proved impossible to deal with all outstanding applications by that date, so the present Bill is needed to make sure that citizens of Pakistan who were eligible to vote as British subjects and who would regain the right to vote if registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and

497
Colonies are not deprived of that right simply because, although they have applied for citizenship, the Home Office will not be able to deal with all the applications which have been received before the qualifying date for elections held in 1975.
Noble Lords will recall that under our predecessors' Bill, which became the Pakistan Act 1973, following Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth in the previous year, citizens of Pakistan who were not also citizens of another Commonwealth country ceased to be British subjects as from September 1, 1973. The Act also provided a period of grace during which the people affected, if appropriately qualified, might apply to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so to reacquire the voting rights which they had lost. Many Pakistanis had of course been here for years, and on the electoral register, but a consequence of their ceasing to be British subjects would have been their being unable to vote at Parliamentary and local elections. A transitional provision was therefore included in the 1973 Act to allow citizens of Pakistan who were already on the 1973 register to vote while that register was in force; that is, up to February 15 of this year. It was also laid down that the same would apply to those who, on the qualifying date for the 1974 register (October 10, 1973) were awaiting determination of their applications for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be treated as British subjects for the purposes of inclusion in the 1974 electoral register.
My Lords, we are approaching the qualifying date for the 1975 register, and it is clear that, despite special arrangements which have been made in the Home Office to deal with the influx of applications for citizenship—arrangements which necessitated the recruitment and training of a substantial number of additional staff—not even a crash programme involving extra manpower could guarantee the completion of even the bulk of the operation by October 10 next, which, as I have indicated already, is the qualifying date for next year's register. The problem has been caused by the fact that the original estimates were upset by changes made during the course of the 1973 Bill. The size of the problem can be shown by the number of applications
498
received. No fewer than 57,000 applications were received before October 10 last year; over 83,000 have been received to date; and by September 1 this year, which is the end of the period of grace allowed by the 1973 Act for applications for citizenship, the total is expected to be in the region of 90,000.
The processing of an application for citizenship is not by any means a straightforward matter. Although leaflets and instructions are sent out with application forms setting out the documentary evidence that must accompany them, barely 50 per cent, of applicants send in satisfactory evidence in the first instance. This of course necessitates a substantial amount of correspondence with the applicant; replies are sometimes slow to come, and frequently more than one letter is needed. All this inevitably adds to delay. So far, 31,500 applications have been finally determined, but this still leaves about two-thirds of those applying within the period of grace who, through no fault of their own, could lose the right to vote as from next February. To allow this to happen would in fact be contrary to the spirit of the 1973 Act, which envisaged that all applications would have been dealt with in time for the 1975 register. So far has the number of applications exceeded what was expected that some, I fear, may not have been determined even by October 10, 1975, the qualifying date for the 1976 register. The Government therefore thought it right to introduce legislation to extend the protection given in the 1973 Act in this respect to those who will have applied for citizenship by September 1 this year but whose applications have not yet been determined by the qualifying date for any register.
I will explain briefly how the Bill seeks to achieve this purpose. The provisions of the 1973 Act which preserve the voting rights of citizens of Pakistan awaiting determination of applications for citizenship are contained in Section 3(5) of that Act. The Bill inserts a new paragraph (c) to Section 3(5) which has the effect of extending the period during which those voting rights are preserved to cover elections held during the currency of the 1975 and subsequent registers, providing that on the qualifying date in the relevant year a person is still awaiting determination of an application for citizenship received by the Home Office before

499
September 1 this year and providing that, in those cases where an application for citizenship requires a period of residence, he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom throughout the period of five years ending on August 31 of this year. As I have said, we cannot at this stage foresee when all, or virtually all, applications for citizenship received by September 1 this year will have been determined, and so the Bill does not specify when these provisions should cease to apply. The Secretary of State is to do this by making an Order—a Statutory Instrument subject to Negative Resolution—and the provisions for this are contained in the new Section 3(5A) which is to be inserted in the 1973 Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill is concerned with minor amendments to the 1973 Act and repeals. Subjection (1) is made necessary by the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, which have replaced the 1969 Regulations cited in Section 3(6) of the 1973 Act, while the Regulations for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, also cited in that subsection, are still in force. Subsection (2) repeals the spent provisions of the 1973 Act, including Section 3(5)(a), which was concerned with the 1973 register.
My Lords, this is a small but, I think, worthy Bill whose object is simply to ensure that people are not deprived of voting rights because of administrative problems in the Home Office. It was given a friendly reception in another place, where it passed without amendment, and I believe that noble Lords will welcome it as a necessary complement to the 1973 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich)
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained this Bill very fully. That, I think, is right because, were it not for the Explanatory Memorandum, it would be totally incomprehensible, and we are therefore very grateful to him. There are three points which I should like to make, apart from the fact that I entirely recognise that the provisions are within the spirit of the legislation which we passed, which was in turn consequent upon Pakistan's leaving the Commonwealth.
500
My first point relates to the figures which the noble Lord gave us. I must say that I am surprised to hear that there have already been 87,000 applications for citizenship, and that 90.000 are expected. Can the noble Lord tell us whether this figure refers to applications by heads of households and, if so, how many citizens of Pakistan origin in all we are likely to have gained as a result of the determination, supposing that they are all granted citizenship? It seems to me that under the present rules, if the father and husband applies and obtains citizenship, his wife and children will automatically gain it, too, and one application only is therefore necessary.
It would be interesting to know, in the light of some of the discussions which are taking place on the general immigration front, and on the ability of this country to assimilate yet further people from overseas, to know what has been (he effect of this action of the Republic of Pakistan, over which we had no control at all. If the noble Lord can tell us that, we should be very interested.
I wonder whether, by any chance, the noble Lord can also tell us if the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir—or, at any rate, the Pakistan part of it—are included in those figures, or are they to be dealt with by some other means? I seem to remember that they fell to be determined under the ordinary procedures, and not under the Pakistan Act itself. While the answers to those unforeseen questions are being fetched—and I apologise for having thought of them only as the noble Lord's speech was in progress—may I make my other two points? The first relates to Clause 2. When we were dealing with this subject this was, for obvious reasons, a Foreign Office Bill and my role was very much in the supporting cast. But I should just like to say to the noble Lord and to those who draft Bills that the incorporation in main legislation of direct amendments and repeals of Statutory Instruments is highly undesirable.
I remember, not very long ago, eyebrows being raised in the Consolidation Bills Committee when, for inevitable reasons of tidiness, a Statutory Instrument had to be dealt with in a Consolidation Bill. It was thought to be a very dubious process even in that rarefied Committee. But to have the matter dealt with in main

501
legislation is really most unsatisfactory, for the reason that those who wish to look up the law will look up Acts of Parliament and their various repeals and amendments under Acts of Parliament, and will tend to look up Statutory Instruments and their amendments and repeals under Statutory Instruments. A person who knows his way about very well can achieve both at the same time, but this does not by any means follow for everybody and they may not have the necessary books. Therefore, I suggest that if we can avoid mixing these two forms of legislation it will add to the ease of discovering what is the law on any particular subject.
My last point is that it is evident from what the noble Lord has told us that the inhabitants of Lunar House, Croydon, who are processing these applications, have been working very hard indeed and I suspect that most members of this House who are not directly involved may be unaware of the extreme degree of skill, patience and persistence needed by the people who do this job. They are all too seldom thanked for their efforts. They work very hard, they are extremely percipient and they are up to all the tricks, and it is not surprising that, as the noble Lord said, they needed to be trained. I should like on this occasion to offer a word of thanks to them, because it is on them and their other colleagues in the Immigration Service that the whole of our control over citizenship in this very prized and difficult area depends. I believe that they are worthy of our thanks on an occasion like this. With those words, I am glad to welcome the Bill in the spirit in which the noble Lord introduced it. I certainly see no way of putting down Amendments to improve it, and indeed I doubt whether I should be able to draft any Amendments to it at all.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, in reply to the points which the noble Viscount has just made, I am most grateful to him for having given notice of at least one of them and he will be glad to know that I can now even answer the other two. First, the figures I gave included all the numbers involved, not just heads of households, and the two territories which the noble Viscount mentioned are also included in the numbers which I have given to the House. On the third point which the noble Vis-
502
count made just before he sat down, this is a difficult matter. The bridging provision in this Bill applies only to those who have made application for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom by September 1, 1974. That is the effective cut-off date, as I hope will be clear to all concerned. Secondly, I think it is only fair to say that once a provision of this kind is spent—which will be the effect of the Order of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he comes to the effective cut-off date—the normal practice is to repeal it formally in a miscellaneous Statute Law Revision Act. These Acts are passed fairly regularly, as your Lordships will be aware. This, I hope, will ensure that the repeal is carried through the Statute Book itself, so I trust that that will to some extent answer the point made by the noble Viscount.
I shall end by saying that I will pass on the gracious words expressed to the staff of the Home Office at Luna House. I think that the only occasions when their work is discussed in this House and another place is when they are criticised for their actions in particularly difficult cases. They have to deal with these every day and they are under the most tremendous pressure, as any of your Lordships who have had any experience at the Home Office will be aware. Also, those noble Lords who approach Home Office Ministers will be aware, I fear, that there is a delay in replying to correspondence because of the immense backlog of work at Lunar House. I very warmly thank the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I will pass on his words to the staff concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COHABITATION RULE
4.49 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the cohabitation rule and its administration in the light of the report of the Child Poverty Action Group. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when I read the report of the Child Poverty Action Group on

503
the cohabitation rule, I was deeply disturbed and I wrote for information to Sir Keith Joseph, to the Council on Tribunals and to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid and, being fortunate enough to draw a place in the ballot for a short Wednesday debate, I put down this Question in the form of a Motion on February 20. Then came the General Election and as soon as the present Government were elected I wrote to the Minister. I of course understood why she was too busy to see me, but I was courteously received by the Minister of State, who gave me a lot of his time and who asked me not to put down a Question again until the Finer Committee had reported. He told me that the Finer Committee were dealing with the matter and that if I put down a Question all he would be able 10 say was that could not say anything until the publication of the Committee's Report.
I have never discovered why, considering that the Finer Report was presented to the preceding Government in November last year, it has taken so long to publish it, but there it is. I should like at once to pay every compliment that I can to the Finer Committee. A good many people—including myself on one occasion—have criticised the Finer Committee for taking such a long time, but the Report is a magnificent document and whatever happens it will be the leading authority in this field for many years to come. Its primary recommendation, of course—for a guaranteed maintenance allowance—is a thing that is going to cost a good deal of money, and one can understand if this Government feel unable to commit themselves to that, and in ordinary law reform experience I suppose in any case it will be about three years before that is accepted. But, as I have said, the Report is a mine of information. We now know that there are 620,000 one-parent families looking after over 1 million children. There are 430,000 lone wives who are responsible for 720,000 children whose fathers are still alive.
What is a cohabitation rule, and why do we have to have one? It depends on a very tiny piece of legislation which is subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Ministry of
504
Social Security Act 1966, which says:
" Where a husband and wife are members of the same household their requirements and resources shall be aggregated and shall be treated as the husbands,"—
typical—
" and similarly, unless there are exceptional circumstances, as regards two persons cohabiting as man and wife."
And in relation to a widow's pension the National Insurance Act 1965 says much the same, except that it uses the expression in relation to a woman
" cohabiting with a man as his wife ".
It is debatable whether there ought to be such a rule at all. The justification for the rule is said to be that if it were not so an unmarried woman living with a man would be in a better position, particularly tax-wise, than a married one. I have never been sure myself whether this is a convincing answer because in every other respect the unmarried woman is in a worse financial position. Mr. Tony Lynes, in an article in New Society in December 1971, said:
" A married woman has a legal right to maintenance during her husband's life, and right of inheritance on his death. Their children are born legitimate. His national insurance contributions entitle her to a maternity grant on the birth of each of her children, a retirement pension at the age of 60 and widows' benefit if he dies before her. These are valuable and are, to most women, important rights. Cohabitation is, by comparison, an extremely insecure situation, especially in the early stages when the question of cutting off the woman's benefit is likely to arise. It is far from self-evident that a woman who has been living with a man for a short time with no intention of marriage on either side ought in equity to be regarded as his dependant, or that she ought not to receive more support from the social security system than a married woman."
But there is this quite separate reason. If an unmarried mother is receiving an adequate income from her father who can afford it, should the taxpayer have to put his hands in his pockets to provide supplementary benefits for her? Of course not. The real basis of that is that she is being maintained by a man. It may be an uncle. Whether she is having sexual relations with her uncle, was, I should have thought, completely irrelevant. Either he is providing her with an income or he is not. However, there it is.
The first difficulty is that there is no definition of what "cohabiting as man and wife" means. The Supplementary Benefits Commission in their Handbook
put it like this—this is what they inform the claimant of:
" The question that has to be decided—and this is not always understood—is whether or not an unmarried couple are in fact living together as man and wife, or in the language of the Act, cohabiting. In most cases the couple wish to be regarded as married, and there is no difficulty. But in some cases the man and woman will deny that they are cohabiting. The Commission then have a duty to decide whether they are or not."
In those last two sentences the word "cohabiting" ought to be what it is in the Act, "cohabiting as man and wife". Then they say:
" There is no simple answer. The decision has to be reached after weighing up a combination of facts, e.g. Is there a common home? Is there a pooled household fund? Do the couple have children? What are the regular sleeping arrangements? Does the woman use the man's name and are the couple acknowledged publicly as man and wife? And so on.
" The answer to any one question is not necessarily conclusive by itself. Nor need the answer to any one question be more significant, taken by itself, than the answer to another. In each case all the facts have to be regarded as a whole in reaching a decision. And it should be emphasised that the decision depends solely on whether it appears that the couple are living as man and wife in the full sense of the term, not on any moral considerations or on whether a man and woman have slept together on occasions."
I think that that puts the position fairly, but the difficulty is that the Commission have two codes. One is called the "A" code which is for their ordinary officials and the other is the "AX" code which arc their instructions to their investigating officials, the ones who are sometimes called "the snoopers". And as the booklet says on page 14:
" The approach taken in the ' AX ' code is very different. There is no question of following the official ' combination of facts ' approach and of carefully weighing up all the facts of the situation ".
These are the officials who actually have the power to decide and do, in fact, decide whether to take a woman's book away and leave her destitute. The booklet continues:
" Indeed the whole question of establishing whether cohabitation exists or not is virtually ignored. Instead, all the criteria carefully elaborated by the Commission are collapsed into the one overriding criterion of whether there is a man living in the same accommodation as the woman. There is no mention of the stipulation made by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in their official report, of the necessity of establishing that they are living
506
together as man and wife. The important issue of housekeeping and financial arrangements is summarily dismissed with the instruction ' that the financial arrangements the couple come to in their relationship is not the point at issue. They may, however, be of interest in that, if there has been regular maintenance, the evidence of cohabitation will have been even further strengthened '."
My Lords, this decision places the accent on sex and not, as I should have thought it should be, on finance. I believe that I may have broken the Official Secrets Act—or may be told so by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell—in quoting from the "AX" code, but the Group had the courage to do that. When I asked a Starred Question, I think a comment was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I am not sure that my noble friend followed this point when he said that there had been a leak. I think that what he meant was that a great many of us strongly take the view that if it is left to the discretion of not well paid officials to make a woman completely destitute, the way to find out how, it is being operated is to see what are the instructions of those officials and to see whether the public have a right in such a case to know the instructions which are being given to them.
What ought to be finance-orientated is at present sex-orientated. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Collison is a magnificent Chairman of the Commission. He has a large staff of thousands who are not well paid. In any large body there must always be some black sheep. The Child Poverty Action Group say very clearly in their Report that they do not suggest that the 50 cases which they examined in great detail was a sufficiently representative sample. One must keep a balance about this matter in fairness to the Commission, and the point has been well expressed by the Finer Committee in their Report when they say, in paragraph 5,266:
" There are few subjects in the field of social security law and administration which give rise to more heat and criticism than the cohabitation rule in supplementary benefits. We have been made conscious of this not only by the literature which abounds and the evidence we have received but also by the frank statement of the Supplementary Benefits Commission of ' this basic difficulty—the mere fact of investigation in this emotionally charged field arouses distress and resentment among claimants, social workers and others, perhaps beyond that aroused in any other area of the Commission's administration '."
They say in the next paragraph:
" It is obvious that a jurisdiction of this kind must expose the Commission to attacks which are unfounded or exaggerated, but which it is hard for them, especially having regard to the obligation of confidence, to refute. Nevertheless, the testimony of the Commission confirms the evidence from other sources, that however much effort is given to improve its administration, and to inform the endeavours in the field with the care and refinement which characterises the thinking at the centre, the cohabitation rule may involve indignities, and sometimes hardship or injustice, for people who fall under its shadow."
I felt, myself, that these women—unmarried mothers, widows, divorced and separated wives—are among the most defenceless of our population. They are always on the borderline of poverty because obviously the 720.000 children cannot be looked after if the mother goes out to work. I suppose they represent the classical example as to why supplementary benefits are necessary. They are usually not well educated and inevitably are in great fear of this official who has the sole right to take away their book. Sometimes it is taken away without their being told why, and often it depends on how much fuss is made. If you make a great fuss the book is suddenly returned to you, but you are never told why the supplementary benefits have been withdrawn.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, when I asked a question about widows, said to me: "Why do you select widows? "I frankly did so because people can, I suppose, say of an unmarried girl who has a baby:" As she has made her bed, so she must lie on it." Of a widow with young children, who had been living happily with her husband before, say, he had a sudden heart attack and died, nobody can say, "Of course, that is her fault". But this does not mean that I am not sympathetic to men. I have perhaps a reputation for being a feminist, which is quite deserved if that means that I think women are discriminated against in too many different ways. We do not always think of the men. Of course, one should be very careful of quoting a man who is dead; one should be certain that he would not mind being quoted and one must be accurate.
I remember that one day Mr. Richard Crossman (whose intellect I greatly admired) came to see me and he said this: "In the whole field of social wel-
508
fare, I think the most difficult problem is that of the fatherless family. There are many different ways in which they might be helped. There must always be limited resources, and I am thinking of appointing a committee to see what is really the best way of tackling this. If I take it to the Cabinet, will you support me?"
I said, "I am sure that would be desirable, but why on earth do you want to limit it to fatherless families?" I went on to say: "You may remember that the biggest single ground for divorce, whether or not it is the real cause of the breakdown of the marriage, is adultery. Every year about half the petitions on this ground are brought by wives against adulterous husbands and the other half are brought by husbands against adulterous wives. But when a man with children aged two, four and six finds that his wife has gone off with another man, he is himself in a very difficult position. Nobody seems to realise this: everybody talks about the women. Of course, if he is in work he wants to continue at work and then he is told that he must get a woman to look after the children. If he has a mother or sister the matter is fairly easy, if they are prepared to give up many years to bringing up the children. If not, where is he to find this woman and is he to sleep in the house? I have said that whereas with women the main problem is one of finance, which a man does not have to the same extent, it is a very difficult position for the man, too, and I see from the Report now that there are about 100,000 fathers who are trying to bring up children in these circumstances."
Mr. Crossman went away saying that he would think about this, and then we heard that the Finer Committee had been appointed and were looking into one-parent families. There have been several independent inquiries, of course, about the operation, apart from this one, by the Child Poverty Action Group. There are many difficulties. One is of course that I can understand the Supplementary Benefits Commission saying to a woman: "Now you have a spare room in your house: you could let that and the State would be relieved of a certain amount of supplementary benefit." When she has a lodger, then they round on her and say, "You are cohabitating". The main way in which the rule seems to be operated is that the officials take

509
away a book if there is a man living in the house, unless the woman satisfies them that she is not cohabitating with him—and of course this is not always an easy thing to do.
Another difficulty is that very often a widow with young children, and being fairly young herself, may feel that it is probably her duty to her children to re-marry. She is thus in that delicate stage of wondering whether this is the right man for a re-marriage; and he is wondering the same. This is always a difficult stage in an emotional development. When the supplementary benefits official arrives at the house he does not only charge the woman or speak to the the woman about the man's presence in the house but he rounds on the man and says, "You ought to be supporting her"—and the official sometimes calls on him at work so that the interview may take place in front of his workmates. I have observed that in about a third of the cases which have been investigated by the Child Poverty Action Group, from the figures given, the man just gets up and goes, because he does not see why he should be put in this position or to be told, "You should be supporting her and then you could get family incomes supplement." Therefore, what might have been a secure re-marriage never happens. The other thing that struck me was that in only four out of the 49 cases for which they got the most complete details was any real contribution being made by the man or any pooling of resources.
Of course, there is an appeal to a tribunal, but the decision is taken before the tribunal. The book is taken away and sometimes you may have to wait months before you can get to the tribunal. This plunges the family at once into a chronic economic position. The Finer Committee considered this and came down against the suggestion that benefit should continue to be paid until the hearing by the tribunal, but what they recommend is that where benefit is already being paid—that is to say, not merely applied for—the official concerned should present a short piece of paper giving the facts on which he thinks there is evidence of cohabitation. If she agrees with the facts she can still appeal to the tribunal on the grounds that the facts do not amount to cohabitation; but if she disputes the facts, the official should
510
himself take the case to the tribunal to get this dispute of fact resolved and meanwhile the payments should continue.
Therefore, I would ask the Government whether they have considered this recommendation and, if so, whether they propose to accept it and, if not, why not?—everything, of course, having stopped except that the Commission, pending appeal (relying on the exceptional cases clause) continues the payments for the children, though not for the mother, for four weeks. The Finer Committee think that that is far too short a time. They say in 5,276:
" The other situation which has given us particular concern is where benefit is withdrawn on the grounds of cohabitation, but the cohabitee is not supporting dependent children of the claimant of whom he is not the father. Currently, the Commission are prepared to deal with such cases by making an exceptional needs payment in the nature of ' an adjusting allowing to meet those children's requirements (taking into account their share of family allowance and any maintenance payments made by their father) for a period of four weeks.
The purpose of these payments is to cushion the family against the abrupt reduction in their income, give the couple time to claim any family income supplement to which they may be entitled, and time to adapt to a situation in which the whole family must in most cases rely upon the man's income for their support.' We regard this period of four weeks as insufficient. Proper as the decision to withdraw the benefit may be, its sudden loss creates in many of the cohabitation cases a crisis within the household of the first order.
Social workers are familiar with this situation: the man who has not been giving support to the dependent children of the woman with whom he is cohabiting is often temperamentally unstable, with limited earning capacity; the loss of income from the benefit may result in the total disruption of what may already be a parlous household economy; rent may fall into arreas, other debts may accumulate and gas and electricity meters become tempting targets. As the Fisher Committee observed. ' The Commission … recognise that the rarity of payments to meet urgent need in cohabitation cases may well conceal a fair amount of genuine need that is not being met … ' We recommend that the four-week period to which we have above made reference should be extended to three months."
May I ask on that point whether the Government accept this recommendation of the Finer Committee and, if not, why not?
Then I come to the appeal tribunal. This is in every respect unsatisfactory. First of all, if a widow's pension is not enough for a woman to live on, it is topped up by supplementary benefits. If the books are taken away, she has two

511
appeals, one to the insurance tribunal in respect of a pension, and one to the supplementary benefits tribunal in respect of the supplementary benefits, the cohabitation rule of course applying to both. The pension tribunal is the tribunal in which two out of three members are appointed by the Minister but the chairman is a lawyer who is appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They follow the rules of evidence and, if they disallow an appeal, there is a right of appeal on law to a commissioner who is a judge of high standing.
The supplementary benefits appeal tribunals are the lowest form of tribunal life. They are paid much less than members of any other tribunal in the country: nominally the Minister appoints two of the three, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is expected to appoint lawyers, appoints the chairman. In real life it is the Minister who appoints all three, for the reason that he simply cannot get lawyers who are prepared to take the chair at tribunals of this kind. Out of 224 chairmen, only 16 are lawyers and 208 are laymen. They have to deal with these delicate affairs affecting women, and the House, with its great knowledge, will not be surprised to hear that 85 per cent, of the members are men.
The appellant has no rights. In the insurance tribunal you are entitled to have a representative, whether a lawyer or not, who can ask questions of the witnesses and address the tribunal. With supplementary benefits tribunal you have no right at all. About a fortnight ago I saw the solicitor to the Child Poverty Action Group. He had come from a supplementary benefits tribunal. A member of the tribunal had said to him, "I have here a letter which proves cohabitation". The solicitor asked to see it but was not allowed to do so. He asked who had written the letter but they would not tell him. He asked what the letter said. They paid no attention to the rules of evidence and were very proud about this. They said it was all discreticn and there was no law in it. They accept as evidence anonymous telephone conversations, anonymous letters, and so forth. There is no appeal at all from this tribunal.
With a pensions tribunal the decisions of the commissioners are binding on the tribunal. They are published; the tribunals have to follow them; there is a doctrine of precedence. As there is no appeal in the supplementary benefits tribunals, this does not apply. In one case the regional officer (who is apparently a very high official) turned up to hear the case, which I suppose he is entitled to do. When the tribunal retired he retired with them. Look at the difficulty of persuading these women that this is an independent tribunal when the Ministry appoints all three members of a tribunal, and when the clerk to the tribunal conies from the Ministry and is going back when he finishes being clerk. Even a regional officer is allowed to be with the tribunal when they consider their decision. I know of at least one case where a widow's pension and supplementary benefits were withdrawn, and she appealed on both. They were heard by the two tribunals. The evidence was exactly the same. The National Insurance tribunal found that there was no cohabitation, and the supplementary benefits tribunal found that there was.
I suggest this needs a complete overhaul and re-thinking. It is almost impossible to get before a judge. I read in The Times of a case which went before a judge. The supplementary benefits tribunal had withdrawn benefits on the ground of cohabitation and the woman appealed. She lost her appeal and, as so often happens, was prosecuted for fraud on the grounds that she ought to have told the Commission that there was a man in the house and she should not have gone on drawing benefits meanwhile. This enabled her to get to a judge because she appealed on the magistrates' decision. It came before the divisional court and, if my recollection is right, the Lord Chief Justice was sitting. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Coliison, this is why I do not think it can be all discretionary. Where you are operating a Statute the construction of the Statute must be a matter of law.
The case was quashed on two grounds: first, the man was not living in the house in the ordinary sense of the word. This woman was separated from her husband. They had discussed a reconciliation and it was agreed that for a trial period the

513
husband would stay in the house at weekends. The court quashed the case on the ground that that was not what was ordinarily understood as cohabiting. The whole point was to see whether or not they would do that in the future. Secondly, as she had not thought herself under any obligation to tell the Commission that her husband had come to the house, she could not have been convicted properly of fraud, because "fraud" means a fraudulent mind, which she had not got.
There is no legal aid. I know of the difficulties of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, regarding legal aid. In the 50 cases carefully examined by the group, not one single appeal succeeded where the woman was not represented. Where she was represented, not necessarily by a lawyer but by a social worker or somebody who read the Act and knew what cohabiting meant, somebody who expressed the woman's point of view—which very often the woman was incapable of doing—60 per cent, of the appeals succeeded. That makes a strong case why legal aid should be allowed.
Some of the cases seem so extraordinary from the point of view of cohabitation. I was talking to a woman at mid-day to-day who had been convicted of cohabiting at the age of 71. She was divorced from her husband 25 years ago and had to find somewhere to live. There was a young man, 25 years younger than she was, who was an old friend of the family. He had a spare room and it was decided that she should have the spare room. She would not pay any rent but would cook his meals and keep the house clean. She had a job and went on working. This went on for a quarter of a century, or whatever it was, and then three years ago the lady developed acute arthritis. She had gone on working until she was 69 and then could not work any more. She would have been entitled to a supplementary pension but she did not apply for that because she did not think it right to live on charity and she had her life savings of £150. For the next two years she lived on her life savings, and then she applied for supplementary benefit, only to be told she was disoualified because she was cohabiting with this man. As there had never
514
been any kind of sexual relationship between them the shock of anybody thinking that she would have sexual relations with a man 25 years younger than herself naturally appalled her.
There was another case of a woman of 59 with an epileptic son. An old friend of her husband used to visit the house and sometimes say the night, because he was the one person with whom this epileptic son, who had frequent fits, got on very well. She had a book taken away from her on the ground that she was cohabiting with this man. Since this has been done she feels she dare not ask this man to the house again (which is a great loss to the epileptic son) in case the same unpleasantness arises again.
I have read the Minister's Statement made in the Commons about this recommendation for the Finer Committee. She says:
" I can also say that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have already in hand a major re-examination of the administration of the cohabitation provisions to assist them to review their policies and will certainly give the most careful consideration to what the Finer Committee have said. I have also asked the Commission to include in their consideration the question whether any amendment of the Supplementary Benefit Act is desirable and to report to me on their findings."
On this point, may I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestcll how long has this inquiry been going on? Secondly, how long is it likely to go on? Is it an entirely internal inquiry or will it be possible for other people to give evidence before it? This has now gone on for a long time. It is always rather distressing when one is told one must wait for something else. We have now waited months and months for Finer. We are grateful to all the members of the Finer Committee. We now look to the Government.
I have seen a letter which the Minister of State has written to the Secretary of the National Association of Widows dealing with all these points on a very non-possumus basis. I trust that that will not be persisted in. I was somewhat upset to notice that this letter, which set out his own personal views on all these matters, was in places, including the whole of the last paragraph, word for word, line for line, exactly the same as a letter which Sir Keith Joseph wrote to me when he was Minister. Of course, it is quite possible

515
for Ministers of different Parties to have the same views. We all know that where there is a strong Civil Service there can be a very strong Departmental view, and I regret it was a case of the voice being the voice of Jacob and the hands being the hands of Esau. I am primarily concerned for these million children. Knowing her, I cannot myself believe that the Minister can be happy about this situation. I am deeply sympathetic to her great difficulties with the reorganised National Health Service (in terms other than those we should have liked), the reorganisation of local government, the Pensions Bill, nurses' strikes and so on. However, if she has time to look into this matter herself I cannot believe, knowing her, that she will allow the administration of the cohabitation rule to continue as it is at present.
5.24 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, when I first heard that the noble and learned Lord was to ask this Question to-night I felt that I must put my name down to speak for one main purpose, which was to identify myself and my noble friends with the case I was sure he was to deploy. However, I was not foolish enough to think that I should have much to add to what he said in deploying the case as forcefully and as well as he has. And so events have turned out. Therefore, I do not wish to go over any of the ground which the noble and learned Lord has himself gone over so well. The only reason why I am staying on my feet for a few minutes longer is that it would be a great pity if this subject was debated and discussed without its being suggested that there was, in tact, a deeper element of injustice and a deeper element of wrong legislation behind even the points which the noble and learned Lord has produced.
He has questioned whether there should be a cohabitation rule at all, in view of the disbenefits, the disadvantages, from which people who are cohabiting, particularly women, suffer. That is a very fair point. I would go behind that even further. He quoted the cohabitation rule as being, of course, a means of bringing the law into line with what is the law for those who are married. I suggest there is something wrong in the rule as it stands, even as it affects marriages; that
516
is, the provision that for social security purposes the income of two people who are married, or two people who are cohabiting, should be lumped together. All this stems from the tradition which we inherit from the economic life of the last century, that the main economic unit with which we must treat is that of the wage-earner and his or her family.
I am very much in favour of the family. I belong to a family. I have a family and I am very fond of them. However, we have gone along the wrong lines in our legislation, and in our social welfare legislation, in trying to think in terms of the wage-earner and his or her dependents, instead of thinking in terms of individuals and the fact that it is their affair whether they marry or live together or anything else. Any economic situation which takes as its unit the wage-earner and his or her dependents will be unjust, in anything except an ideal world, to the dependents. One of the reasons why this bears hardly on women is that in a situation and a society where the job of bringing up the children is, I suppose, regarded as a private contract between a wage-earner and his wife, the majority of the dependents are women. But what I am saying applies to all dependents whether they are women or men. It seemed to me a bad basic fault in the Beveridge Report and the whole welfare system that this has been allowed to continue.
From it have stemmed a great many injustices. When one starts trying to apply the rules such as the cohabitation rule one comes across all these hard cases and it is difficult to see how to do away with them. It is exactly the same kind of thinking, and the same kind of wrong placing of the economic unit, which have made the trouble with the immigration rules and the hardship that they have given to some dependents with injustice to women—an injustice which I am delighted to know (and I pay tribute to this) has to a certain extent been abolished recently. Surely, if we were starting again from scratch to-day with the social security system we would start with a system whereby we would guarantee the safety net, so to speak, of basic living money—the basic ability to live and not to starve—not for the unit of a family but for men, women and children. Indeed, we are moving along those lines already. The whole idea of a

517
children's allowance is moving in that direction. The idea that the children's allowance should be extended to the first child, which my Party has stood for some time and which many people, again, are moving towards, is another step in this direction.
My Lords, T think that there should be no lessening of social security benefits for anybody just because they happen to share a house with somebody, whether or not they are married. I should like the pension to be a unit pension for men or women and exactly the same for each, and it should not be lessened because they happen to be living together or to be in a household together. There might be a statutory lessening in so far as part of the pension is deemed to be for housing and a saving results from the sharing of a house. Basically, however, we should be producing a safety net for individuals and if we introduced it we should be escaping from these injustices. It would be expensive to produce a social security system like this. It would cost a great deal more than we pay for it at the moment, but that we have to move in that direction and that we shall move in that direction I have little doubt.
My Lords, there is one way in which in the long run it would not be expensive and inflationary, because as well as making sense of the social security system it would import a certain amount of common sense into the wages and incomes system of this country. As your Lordships know, at the moment we have a situation (although it does not always work out like this) in which the basic wage is meant to be calculated as what is necessary to support a man with a wife and some children. This is grossly inflationary, because one pays the same basic wage to an unmarried man who has none of those responsibilities. If one had a sensible social security system, either by negative income tax or by tax credit with a claw-back from the taxation system, one would be able to import a great deal more sense into the whole of one's incomes and wages policy.
My Lords, I apologise for digressing a little from the main subject of the debate, but at least your Lordships will agree that I have not kept your Lordships' House long. I think it is right that when we have problems which raise many individual injustices we should look
518
back and back again to see whether there is something which is fundamentally wrong with the system which we are administering that we should try to cure in future social security Bills. What I have said may not be directly pertinent to what the Minister has to say to-day in reply to the Question raised by the noble and learned Lord, but I think that it is something which Government and political Parties should think about when they pass further legislation in the social security field—as, indeed, will happen in the future.
5.32 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, we are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord who has asked this Question. In his usual splendid way he has covered the whole of the matter which we are discussing. We know about his great compassionate beliefs in many fields, and women in particular are deeply grateful to him for raising this Question.
My Lords, I shall give one straightforward and simple story which illustrates the question that has been put. It is a case which came to the surgery of a Member of another place a couple of weeks ago. At five o'clock on a Saturday afternoon the last case to ask for advice was a young woman with a small child who came in, sat down quietly, was very still and said suddenly to the Member, "I am going to kill myself". The Member said, "What is the trouble?" The woman then told her that she was a widow with five children, that she had been accused of cohabiting with a man who was living in her house and that her pension book had been taken away.
I think it is perhaps difficult for some Members of your Lordships' House to appreciate what it must be like for a woman with five small children to be left totally without money at five o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. The Member offered to help her with some money. The woman refused the money; she did not want it; she wept. Then she explained the terrible trauma she had experienced. The Member returned to London and on Sunday telephoned the emergency service of the Department of Health and Social Security. There is a telephone number for this purpose. All that she got was a recorded answer which informed her that the duty officer was not available. Therefore it

519
was Monday, after more telephoning locally, before she was able to obtain any kind of help for this woman. Then the local officer said, "Of course, the woman could have had some help if she had filled in the right forms". That is the kind of system under which we live. I remember G. K. Chesterton's famous words. He spoke of the "Lords of the Dead Eyes and their fumbling papers".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has described how the cohabitation rule works. As he pointed out, it is important to remember that there is no definition of "cohabitation". And, indeed, ¡the administration of the system is different according to the benefits which are collected. The four or five vital questions which were put by the noble and learned Lord are those which are used now as the criteria to decide whether people are cohabiting. Does the woman use the man's name and do they represent themselves as man and wife? That is simple, Is the partnership a stable one and for how long has it lasted? Again that is not difficult. Is there a common home in the sense of shared accommodation? I suggest, My Lords, that this is not so easy a question to answer. Have the couple had children and do they share the same bedroom? Reading the cases, it seems to me that the crux of the matter is whether they share the same bedroom. It is the question to which they return again and again. Finally, does the man support the woman financially?
I will give your Lordships two cases. They might be hypothetical but in fact they are not. I chose a widow of over 60 years of age, thinking that she could not be held to be cohabiting, but now we hear that even when you are 71 you are not immune from the charge. I notice that if you claim your retirement pension there is no cohabitation rule, so perhaps the lady of 71 is holding the wrong pension book. The first case is the widow of over 60 who has two lodgers. Each lodger pays her about £8 a week for lodging, food and shared accommodation, and if she makes any profit from letting this accommodation she makes a return to Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes. However, she is still allowed to receive her widow's pension, although she is receiving money over and above that which the State provides for her. Yet if we take
520
the case of the widowed mother, at 33 years of age she has one lodger but because somebody suggests that she sleeps with him she is not allowed to have money from the State since he should be supporting her.
My Lords, whichever way you examine it, this is totally illogical. I have not yet read my copy, but whatever the Finer Report says I am going to ask for the abolition of this rule. I believe that it is cruel and I believe that it is expensive to operate, just as is that other crazy rule which, with other Members of your Lordships' House, I have tried to abolish. It is particularly degrading both to the woman who is being investigated and to those people who have to investigate. I expect I shall be told that it is going to be too costly, but I say to the Government quite seriously that there is no evidence to suggest that if you abolish this rule each of the 556 widows will rush out to-morrow and set up cohabitation with a man. Would it be unfair to a married couple? As the noble and learned Lord has already pointed out, the married woman has the kind of security which a woman who lives as a common law wife could never have at any stage. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. In the long term, we shall have to look much more carefully at the status of women—at the status of the home maker who at the moment has no status within the law.
From this stem many other injustices, such as the difficulty for the disabled housewife in getting anything. If we cannot have the abolition of the rule, I would ask the Government quite seriously to take into consideration some other points which are absolutely vital to the operation of this system. First, I would say that benefits—and not just for children—must not be withdrawn until a case has been heard by an independent tribunal. What right have we to find people guilty before they have even gone through the process of investigation? The onus of proof must be placed on the authority making the decision that a person is cohabiting, and it must be made clear to the woman that she can appeal. It is perfectly obvious to me, as the secretary to a women's organisation—because I see practically every kind of difficulty that women have to contend with—that nobody had explained that one

521
could appeal, nor indeed would people understand how to set about it. We must have the whole set-up looked at carefully.
The National Association of Widows has been doing some splendid work in representing the widows at the tribunal, but few women will win their case if they have to go alone. I am a magistrate, and I know only too well the necessity to have an expert who understands the procedure of how to question witnesses. One can imagine a woman coming before the tribunal and having to challenge the evidence given by a skilled officer. In my view, there is a very strange overtone in this, that the State must never at any stage be seen to be supporting what is called "immorality". I was in court the other day listening to the case of a man who was living on immoral earnings. This was no Messina-like character; he was a rather delicate young man who was living with a rather jolly lady 20 years his senior. But I felt that had she been working at the local supermarket nobody would have questioned the fact that she was supporting him. We always have an overtone that one must never appear to be condoning this conduct. To those who say that somebody will cheat, I would say, as a Christian, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think that cheating the State has become some kind of game. We all know people who will tell us how they were clever at cheating the Customs, or how they found a way to get around the income tax. This is a cruel and unjust rule and I ask this Government, in their compassion, to seek its abolition.
5.44 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for asking this Question, which has pin-pointed the difficulties of so many women in this country. Those of us in this House who are widows are most grateful to him for bringing this matter out into the open, and perhaps for having the light of the Press shed upon it, because as there are no copies of Hansard being printed that is about the only way in which we can get this known.
From the vast amount of material available, it is obvious that the subject of cohabitation is an unusually difficult and delicate one. Needless to say, each writer and all who give evidence think
522
that their version of the word "cohabiting" is the correct one. But the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 referred to "cohabiting as man and wife", while the National Insurance Act refers to "cohabiting with a man as his wife". Whichever wording one prefers, the fact remains that there is a rule and if a woman breaks that rule by taking unto herself a common law husband she shall forfeit the right to the widow's pension and her book is withdrawn.
Those of us who are interested in this debate today will all have heard of women who have been suspected of breaking the rules, and who have been made acutely unhappy because of the suggestion that they might be cohabiting. There are 3 million widows in this country today, and in 1972 only 1,146 had their books withdrawn. Of these, after further investigation, 40 had their books returned to them. One wonders how many of the other 1,100 were actually breaking the rules and how many did not know the rules. The insurance inspectors on the staff of the local N.H.S.S. offices are authorised by the Central Pensions Branch at Newcastle to carry out investigations. He, or she, establishes the facts according to the rules laid down and to the best of their ability.
If the inspector is satisfied that cohabitation exists in the home, he reports to his office and the woman's book is forthwith withdrawn. But no one is perfect and there is evidence to show that on some occasions the officer is wrong. The book, which may represent all her finances, is withdrawn. The woman can protest her innocence, but I fear that few women know of their rights of appeal. They can appeal to a tribunal—and, having heard what the noble and learned Lord has said, I hope that in future tribunals will always have a woman as one of their number—which, unfortunately, is likely to take some time to hear the case: meanwhile no book, no money. I should like to see two changes: First, that the woman should retain her book until the appeal is heard; and, secondly, that she should be legally represented. I also think that the investigating officer should given the woman a detailed written report of what he has found and the reasons for his decision. I also feel that within a short time of the woman being widowed a representative of the N.H.S.S. should

523
call on her and tell her of the provisions which are made for her benefit.
The newly formed National Association of Widows, of which I am very proud to be a patron, is giving a superb service in helping those widows who need guidance and help with their problems. I should like to pay my tribute in this House today to their first and present chairman, Mrs. Hamer, for all that she does to help the widows. This Association is against the abolition of the cohabitation rule, realising as we do that if there were no rule unmarried couples living together would be treated more favourably than married ones. This is not Utopia, and although the previous Government reduced the age at which a widow may receive benefit to 35, in my opinion it is still not low enough. If we were in Utopia, I should like to see some help for a widower who is left with children. I sometimes feel that his load is more difficult than ours. As we all know, laws and rules are made but widows, in particular, have to rely on the sympathy and understanding of those who implement them.
5.49 p.m.
LADY KINLOSS: My Lords, I am happy to join with other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for having asked this Question. I myself have been in touch with Miss Ruth Lister, whose As Man and Wife seems to me to be a model of clarity and good sense; and also with the Chairman and Secretary of the Child Action Poverty Group branch in York, Mr. Jonathan Bradshaw and Miss Teresa Gilbert, who have kindly given me far more information about what is a very difficult subject than I can possibly use in what I hope will be a very short speech. Indeed, the time for speaking at greater length will be when we come to debate the Finer Report, which was published only on July 2. I cannot say that I have been able to read it; there are 910 pages and there is a very great deal in it to think about and to consider with care. All the same, in view of some of the very painful revelations that the report has made—and by" revelations "I mean revelations which are giving pain to a very large number of women and children—I hope that a full debate upon it will not be long
524
delayed. Indeed, I venture to hope that, whatever Government may be in office when we assemble again in the autumn, we may have an early opportunity of debating it then. There are no less than 620,000 families involved, and more than one million children—10 per cent, of all the families in Britain. Surely such a substantial number has an early claim upon our attention.
My Lords, this Question is concerned with the cohabitation rule and I must not stray wide of the Question—if I have not done so already. I cannot speak, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, does, as one learned in the law. But it is generally understood that everyone is presumed to know the law; though it is quite another question whether everyone does. But it seems to me as a very ordinary person that the cohabitation rule is not law at all; it is non-law because it seems to defy definition. If there is a real definition I shall be glad to be told of it; it will put a great many women—I am happily not one of those affected—out of what, at the moment, is a state of uncertainty and misery. This non-law, My Lords, appears to me as a simple laywoman to contradict what I have been taught to regard to be a fundamental of English law; that persons are to be presumed innocent until they have been proved guilty.
It is shameful, My Lords, that under this non-law—this non-law which has proved incapable of definition—a woman and children can be deprived of benefit and left destitute by the instant removal of her benefit book before she can even draw breath to appeal against the summary action of an investigating officer. This state of non-law goes even further than I have said: if the woman who has had her benefit book withdrawn does appeal, she appeals to a tribunal upon which there is not necessarily a single legally qualified person. Yet to these appeal tribunals has been entrusted the definition of the cohabitation rule and the consequence which may flow from it.
My Lords, I appreciate that there are serious difficulties in defining what "cohabitation" means. Like many noble Lords, I live in a village. Of course everyone knows that in a village there is a great deal of gossip; and everyone knows, too, that it is nonsense to rely too much upon it. In the past seven years

525
I have been told six times that our house is for sale, because of advertisements which have appeared in the local newspaper. In fact, it has not been advertised once. It is surely quite scandalous that many investigations seem to have relied upon anonymous letters and anonymous telephone calls. Of course the investigators may reasonably plead that they are "acting upon information received", in the way the police do. But real cohabitation as man and wife, cohabitation not merely in the sense of sexual congress but in the sense of a more permanent quasi-marital unity, needs to be proved in formal terms. The question, as it appears to me, with which the Ministry is faced, is: what is to be regarded as a quasi-marital union?
There seems to be a solution in Miss Lister's Report. Her recommendation, which I fully support, is that for a quasi-marital relationship to be regarded as stable it should be necessary for the investigation to show that there had been a six-month period of cohabitation, and that women—who, with children, have been the principal sufferers—should not be penalised for what are casual or transitory relationships. Such a change—and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will consider it with sympathy—for the women and children who are suffering, could be brought about at once, quite simply, by administrative action.
I am speaking, My Lords, as a mother, and there are quite a few noble Ladies in the House who are mothers and who will know what I mean. I am quite sure that noble Lords will not misunderstand me. Under the present haphazard, random administration of the cohabitation rule, not just mothers but also children suffer. They see mother struggling; they see mother downcast and worried. Generally, mother is the only parent they know. Sometimes they are sent into care. I have been told of children who live in fear of being sent into care again, of being separated from mother. Will the noble Lord who is to reply think especially about the children upon whom there can be a lasting disturbing effect?
5.56 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner for
526
initiating this debate and for opening with such an excellent exposition, so comprehensive that one feels that anything more is redundant. I was very impressed by the fact that he has apparently digested both volumes of Finer. I must confess that I have only dipped into it, but undoubtedly one should combine the reading of this little booklet, As Man and Wife, with the reading of the Finer Report. Of the 600,000 single-handed parents who have between them one million children, the woman charged with breaking the cohabitation rule is too often a mother desperately trying to find accommodation and a degree of security. One has to think of her motive.
It is probably a fact that those who are cohabiting have sexual intercourse. But I know enough about women, and about women whom I have seen in my consulting room, to know that in their minds this is a secondary consideration. What such a woman is looking for is a male substitute for her husband, because she is wise enough to know, if she has a family, that a man in the house will help her to control her children. This, also, is combined with the problem of accommodation, which in these days is extremely difficult to find for highly respectable married couples, and therefore this woman with children has only a limited choice. The pressures on her are tremendous and, finally, she accepts a man who has the available accommodation and who, at the time, she feels she can trust.
It should be remembered that one-parent families suffer severe poverty. As I have just said, they are often last in the queue for housing and they suffer social isolation. The woman has no friend to whom she can go to ask for advice and help. She is isolated in every way. Therefore, I believe that this is a question which calls for the utmost compassion, and in this little book, As Man and Wife, I find the description of officials trying to persuade women into admitting cohabitation extremely distasteful. The most common adjectives used to describe the officer's manner were, "arrogant", "uncivil" and "insulting". My Lords, it could be said that these women, having their most private affairs investigated and probed, would want to retaliate, so I cannot attach too much importance to this.

527
However, I should like to know how many investigating officers are women. This seems to me to be essentially a woman's job, because a woman can put herself in the place of this desperate woman. Surely this delicate operation is not always conducted by men, although I have heard people talking in a way which suggests that the investigator is invariably male. The whole object, apparently, is to save money, but this seems to me to be a most expensive service. In 1971, the cost of the investigations were £400,000 which represents 45 per cent, of the benefit estimated to be saved. It is a pity that there is no way of estimating the cost in human misery of these painful investigations, better known by the victims as "snooping". However worthy the official may be, he may well regard a mother bringing up children alone as,
" a little cluster of deviants from the marital norm ",
if I may quote Finer, and therefore vulnerable to offers of accommodation made by any man.
In a permissive society, are these women to be wholly condemned because they respond to the sexual urge, an instinct second only in strength to that of self-preservation? As I have already said, in my opinion that sexual urge is a secondary matter. What these women want is protection for their children. Nevertheless, it has been decreed that the price of State aid is chastity. A woman must be condemned to abject poverty in her own right if, in her loneliness and homelessness, she decides to share accommodation with a man prepared to offer her and her children shelter without marriage. I stress "in her own right" because she has none of the protection afforded to married women. She has no moral claim to an adequate housekeeping allowance, although it is suggested she may be benefiting financially, or to rights under the Matrimonial Homes Act. Both 1964. Worse still, she has no security under the matrimonial Homes Act. Both of these Acts I rejoiced in getting on the Statute Book myself. So one cannot equate her with a married woman. She is there with this man on sufferance, and any day he can say, "This is the end, go".
My Lords, under these circumstances she must privately consider the arrange ments
528
as being on trial. I cannot believe any woman, knowing how precarious is her situation, would believe, once she moves in, that this was a permanent arrangement. She may hope so, but she will privately regard it as being on trial. For this reason I regard the withdrawal of widow's pensions and supplementary benefit on suspicion of cohabitation, even before an appeal, as heartless and shortsighted. My noble and learned friend has described just what the condition can be of a woman left at the week-end with five children, and her book taken away. She may well have decided to leave the man after a trial period, but stopping the only money which she might call her own is tantamount to removing her lifeline by denying her a chance to save and escape. Even if she has saved, there she is, denied any little money she might use without the man she is living with knowing what she is about to do. I presume the reason for this action is that otherwise the State would be subsidising immorality. Personally, I have always regarded the deliberate deprivation of hungry and homeless children as more reprehensible than sexual immorality.
My Lords, if the Government insist on the cohabitation rule continuing I ask them to allow the woman to retain her benefit for at least the first six months of cohabitation. I believe Finer says three months. Three months is not enough to adjust oneself in such a way that one is prepared to go out into a really cruel and cold world. I think the woman should retain her benefit for at least six months in order to give her a chance of forming a stable union. The desirable thing in all these circumstances is that, if possible, the woman and children should establish a stable union.
If the cohabitation rule were abolished, save in common law marriages it would give the woman a degree of independence and prevent the children ultimately going into care at much greater cost to the community. I do not think the authorities have recognised this. A woman may have been cohabiting; she may have to leave; she may even cohabit with another man. The time comes when she finds life unbearable, and decides to let the children go into care. Children who go into care, deserted by the community, must inevitably develop in a way which is harmful to themselves and, of course,

529
they form a risk to the whole community. The alternative is to adopt the second proposal of "as man and wife", and, having established the relationship as relatively stable, reduce the woman's benefit by the amount that represents the man's material support, if this could be done tidily as an alternative. But I have to agree, when considering both the suggestions put forward, that the only practical one is abolition.
This is a social problem which should not be regarded in isolation. Children denied the right of even an inadequate home with a substitute father may well become the delinquents of tomorrow.
6.5 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for having put down this Question and giving us an opportunity to discuss the cohabitation rule. This is a matter which arouses deep emotions on all sides of the House. It has done so to-day. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is to reply to a debate that has been extremely well-informed and highly critical of this rule. I do not know to what extent he will find me on his side or not, but as the noble and learned Lord has had identical letters from Ministers in both our Governments, it may be I have some sympathy with what will be his point of view.
When we were in Government, we certainly were well aware of the feelings of many people and, indeed, some organisations which represented to us some of the circumstances that cause a great deal of worry and distress about the rule. We were equally concerned with the other side of the coin. We were concerned with abuses that took place within the social security system. Noble Lords will recall that my right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph set up a Committee on the abuse of social security benefits, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Fisher. This Committee reported in March 1973. I think it is worth recalling what that Committee had to say on the subject of the cohabitation rule. I will not do more than quote a very brief passage from it. In paragraph 325, it says:
" We accept that in this sensitive area of human relations it is particularly important that the measures employed by the Department
530
of Health and Social Security to contain an abuse should be no more intrusive than the extent of the abuse requires, and should involve as little offence to the feelings of the beneficiaries as is consistent with efficiency. We are, however, equally satisfied that if abuse occurs, as it does, it would be wrong for the Department to turn a blind eye to it because the people committing abuse arc in a situation which attracts sympathy ",
That is what the Committee said on the principle of the cohabitation rule.
They went on to make their recommendations on the way in which investigations were conducted. Again, I quote from paragraph 335:
" Subject to the comments we have made about the difficulties involved in enforcing cohabitation rules and the particular criticism which wo make below, we have no criticism of the Commission's principles. They combine realism with humanity, and where they arc followed we do not consider that there is any legitimate ground for complaint."
That is what one would expect of a Supplementary Benefits Commission led by a chairman whom we respect in this House. They went on to make various recommendations as to how the conduct of investigations into abuse could be improved. I should certainly be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, what action has been taken on the recommendations of the Fisher Report. That is one highly authoritative Report which stood by the principle of the cohabitation rule, but made suggestions to improve its application.
We now have another Report, referred to by various noble Lords who have spoken to-day; the Report of the Finer Committee on one-parent families, of which my noble friend Lady Macleod, who made such an excellent speech today, was for a time a member until she resigned. I am afraid that I, too, have not had the opportunity of reading the 500-odd pages of this Report, but I have read the portion that deals with the cohabitation rule. The noble and learned Lord praised this Report very warmly as an excellent document. He quoted certain of the recommendations, but I think it is very relevant also to quote what the Finer Committee said about the general principle of the rule. I quote from Part 5, paragraphs 268/9, where they discuss the way the rule works. They said:
"… the cohabitation rule may involve indignities, and sometimes hardship or injustice, for people who fall under its shadow

531
That has been very much the tenor of this debate. They went on:
" For this reason we had the strong disposition to recommend the abolition of the rule, which potentially affects all claimants who find themselves in the one-parent family situation, and we would have been glad to make such a recommendation had we been able to discover a reasonable and viable basis for doing so. We spent much time in this endeavour, but failed. It is proper to concentrate on the weaknesses in the rule and the hardships it can sometimes produce, so long as this is not permitted to hide or confuse the overwhelming argument in its favour. This is that it cannot be right to treat unmarried women who have the support of a partner both as if they had no such support and better than if they were married ".
That, coming from the Finer Committee, is to me pretty convincing evidence.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. He said "unmarried women", but surely they are not referring to widows.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, they are referring to all single parents. This was a Committee on one-parent families and, certainly, widows are included in one-parent families.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene—I am sure he will, as he is a very kind man—on these subjects? The Finer Committee said also, as I have already quoted,
"… Acts which protect married women which will not protect these ".
How can he say that the single woman will be treated better than the married woman?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, at the moment I am only quoting what the Finer Committee said. They went into the matter very carefully. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is a very fine Report, and I am being guided by what it said. Of course, I recognise that this does not apply to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who wishes to see the married woman treated differently and in her own right. That is another question, and, as he said, a very extensive one.
The Finer Committee went on to say, having convinced themselves of the necessity for the rule: —
" Granted the necessity for the rule, the task must be to improve its administration so
532
as to minimise the dangers to which everyone agrees it gives rise. We are more than satisfied that the Commission are alive to these dangers and use their best endeavours, although not always with the success they would wish, to eliminate them."
The noble and learned Lord mentioned both their recommendations for improvements in the system of administration, and one of them looks as if it was inspired by my noble friend Lady Macleod. This is the proposal that in those situations where the claimant has been regularly in receipt of benefit and disputes the alleged facts, before withdrawing benefits the appropriate officer of the Commission should give the claimant a written statement of the facts. If the claimant denies any of the facts in the statement, the Commission themselves would refer the case to the tribunal and, pending determination of that reference, the benefit would continue in payment; which is another point put by various noble Lords from different parts of the House. They also made another seemingly very useful suggestion. When the Commission are making exceptional needs payments in the nature of an adjusting allowance to meet children's requirements, they do it now for a period of four weeks, and the Committee recommended that it should be extended to three months.
I have great sympathy with these two recommendations made in the Finer Report, and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, what is the Government's attitude to those two recommendations in the Finer Report. My feeling on the matter, having had two investigations into this rule, the Reports of the Fisher Committee and of the Finer Committee, and both of those Committees having come down in favour of the principle of the rule but making suggestions for its detailed application, is that this is very strong evidence that, in principle, we should stick by the rule. In fact, the Finer Committee, interestingly enough, which produced the admirable suggestion for a guaranteed maintenance allowance, went further. In making this suggestion for a guaranteed maintenance allowance, they argeed that a cohabitation rule in conjunction with the allowance would be unavoidable. This is in paragraph 164 of Part 5. This is the evidence to which I think your Lordships should pay heed. We should be concentrating on an improvement of the administration of the rule.
6.18 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter at this time, in view of the publication of the Finer Report. The whole question of what has come to be known as the cohabitation rule is one to which the Government and the Supplementary Benefits Commission have given, and are giving, some considerable thought. I think one has to recognise the fact that this is an extraordinary sensitive area in the administration of both supplementary benefits and widows' benefits.
The noble and learned Lord asked me what is being done at the present moment to consider the matters which he raised in a Starred Question, and has raised to-day in an Unstarred Question. The Supplementary Benefits Commission have started an inquiry which began earlier this year. It is being conducted by the Commission and, while it is not in any sense a public inquiry, it will be taking into account not only what has been said in the Fisher Committee's Report—and, in fact, it acted upon some of the recommendations of the Fisher Committee—but what has been said in the Finer Committee's Report and, I think I can say, what has been said in the Report of the Child Poverty Action Group.
I think many of us realise that this is a serious attempt on the part of the authoress to make a specifie contribution in this field. I have no doubt in my own mind that the Commission would be prepared to consider representations made to them, but I do not know whether the Commission would be prepared to hear evidence in person. However, I can see no reason at all why anyone should not write to them if they have something to contribute to the kind of inquiry that the Commission is undertaking at the present moment, and which may have come out of the debate we have had to-day. It must rest with the Commission to decide whether they would wish to consider evidence being given before them in any form. I must confess that this has not arisen, but there is no reason at all why the Commission should not consider whether it will receive evidence in writing as well as evidence in person. I do not think, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive
534
me, that I can go farther than that at the present moment.
The noble and learned Lord, and my noble friend Lady Phillips, raised the question of the definition of the word "cohabitation". I was somewhat surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say that there had been no definition on this. I am not in a position to argue with him because his knowledge of these matters is superior to that of many of us in your Lordships' House, but my attention was drawn some days ago to a judgment in the Queen's Bench Division of April 11 last year when the Lord Chief Justice said:
" We have been invited to give some guidance upon the phrase ' cohabiting as man and wife ' but, for my part, it is so well known that nothing I could say about it could possibly assist in its interpretation hereafter.'
I think that every magistrates' court throughout the country, at some stage or other in its domestic proceedings, has to deal with this very matter. I would go so far as to say that there can be very few lay magistrates, as well as stipendiaries, who do not have a clear conception in their minds as to what "cohabitation" means.
I believe "cohabitation" means—and this has always been my interpretation of the term—the state of two people living together. It does net depend on there being a sexual relationship between them. On many occasions in desertion cases where husbands and wives have lived in separate parts of the house, have had no communication at all and have not lived together sexually but the wife has done shopping for the husband and done a certain amount of washing for him, as the noble and learned Lord will know better than I, the courts have held that they are, in fact, still living together. It is the state of living together rather than, the presence of the sexual act. I do not think that I can take it any further than that, but I should have thought that there is a reasonably clear and understandable definition of "cohabitation".
The noble and learned Lord, and also my noble friend Lady Phillips, asked about benefit pending an appeal. We have to bear in mind—it may be wrong—-that we are dealing with a fairly substantial amount of public money. It may be that we ought to change the rule; it may be that we ought to go a long way towards it if we do not abolish it

535
altogether, but in the last analysis we have to keep in the forefront of our minds that this is the State spending public money, and the public must be satisfied that the money is being spent in the right way. To continue paying benefit—and I would ask your Lordships to consider this point—pending an appeal may encourage every person to appeal when their supplementary benefit has stopped. A large number of persons who have their benefit stopped, who have their book withdrawn, accept the situation and do not appeal. Your Lordships may not know, but after special investigation they are given notice in writing that their book is to be withdrawn and that they can appeal. As the noble and '.earned Lord says, it may well be that some of them do not know what steps to take, but they are told in writing that they can appeal. Only a small number appeal, and it may well be that if one continues paying benefit pending appeal in every case, however obvious it might be that the couples were cohabiting, it might encourage every person to appeal when, in the majority of instances, perhaps they would otherwise not do so.
I hope that I have answered the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on the question of the sexual aspect, because an occasional sexual relationship by somebody having a supplementary benefit is not, in itself, considered by the Commission as living in a state of cohabitation. Therefore, one cannot say that the decision is tied up completely with any kind of sexual relationship. The noble Baroness also raised the question of the number of investigators. I must say that I am nervous about telling the House what the situation is. I understand that there are something like 320 investigators, but that less than half their time is concerned with cases of cohabitation. So far as I understand the situation, none of them are women. I say this with some apprehension. I would point out that the Commission's Report makes it clear that this can be, and often is, a job in which the officer is involved not only in embarrassment—and that aspect does not worry me at all—but one has to be aware of the fact that at worst there can be a risk of physical violence. It does not necessarily follow that because that element is present there should not be women investigators. I
536
am sure that the point that the noble Baroness has made will be taken up by the Department because I know that considerable importance is being attached to this debate.
In considering this matter—I think I can say "controversial matter" having regard to what has been said to-day—it is important that we should not lose sight of what has been the fundamental purpose of the rule. I ought to explain what the situation is, and has been for some considerable time. It must be seen in the context of social policy as a whole and not simply as a rule of particular social security schemes. The law and custom of this country is to treat the family—and by "family" I mean the man, wife and dependent children living with them—as a financial unit. This has always been the case. The cohabitation rule is simply a consequence of all the other arrangements that give effect to this principle. The principle itself reflects the importance of the stable family as the basic unit in our social structure. The supplementary benefit scale rates are based on the recognition of a family unit. The legislation provides that the requirements and resources of a couple cohabiting as man and wife are to be aggregated in the same way as those of a married couple living together.
It has been the view of successive Governments that equality of treatment as between married couples and cohabiting couples is both necessary and right. Not to treat them alike would—and I know that this is not accepted by many noble Lords—put the cohabiting couple in a more advantageous position, because the woman could continue to receive supplementary benefit while her partner is working. This seems to be grossly unfair. We are, therefore, denying it to the woman who is married. It would constitute considerable unrest in the community if there was a pattern of family life in which the husband, responsible for his wife and children, was in full-term employment earning a normal wage and, therefore, not eligible for family incomes supplement and not working a sufficiently reduced number of hours a week to qualify him for supplementary benefit, but who was doing a normal job in a normal working week for a normal income and having to keep a wife and family on that. Whereas, if you had a woman who is in receipt of

537
supplementary benefit who decided to team up, with a view to establishing a kind of marriage relationship, but who is not married, in which the husband is working and doing a normal job with a normal income while she is continuing to receive supplementary benefit for herself and any children which she may have had in a former marriage, or as a result of former liaisons, that situation, surely, cannot be either reasonable or right.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: If the Minister will forgive me, he keeps saying "supplementary benefit". The case I mentioned was of a woman who had a widow's pension withdrawn. That is not supplementary benefit.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: No, I can see that it is not, but the widow's pension is not given to the widow in her own right. It is given to her to meet certain needs as the result of the loss of her husband who himself has paid benefit insurance over a fair number of years. She gets this as the result of what her deceased husband has contributed. So, while it is not a supplementary benefit, it is a payment by the State arising from his insurance, given to her to meet a situation now that he has died. In that sense it is not a supplementary benefit; it stems from National Insurance benefit, but it is not something for which she herself has paid in and received as a right. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the yardstick which is applied to people receiving supplementary benefit should apply to the widow.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is not the Minister, with every one of his last few words, admitting the logic of the case that I was deploying?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. What I wanted to say—perhaps I may say it now because I made a note of it at the time—is that I found his comments interesting and in some respects stimulating. I wanted to read his speech at leisure in Hansard before making any comment on it. That is what I had written down to say to the noble Lord at a later stage.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I make this point to the noble Lord. I feel strongly about this matter, that there is an argument, which the noble Lord has
538
repeated, that we must not make it appear that the single woman is being treated better than a wife. But she does not have any security. With marriage the wife has security. I spelled it all out in my speech. The wife has the security of the home and she can stay there whatever the husband does. But we are talking about a woman who has no security whatsoever and who can be put out of the house in two minutes.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I follow this point up to show how totally illogical it is? If the woman is 65 and claims retirement pension there is no cohabitation rule applied. Yet she is still receiving money from the State when she might be living with a man who is supporting her.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, because she is receiving retirement pension in her own right, which is something entirely different. If I may reply to my noble friend Lady Summerskill, there is nothing to prevent the woman, whether or not she has children, if the relationship that she has entered into with a man breaks down, going back to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and asking for supplementary benefit.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Of course, she would have to.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Precisely. I can see that she does not have the same protection as a married woman, but if she enters into a relationship of the kind that we have been discussing, and, for any reason at all, it breaks down, then she is back in the situation that she was in before she entered into the relationship. It seems to me to be perfectly right and proper that she should then be able to ask for the supplementary benefit to be restored.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to the Finer Committee. As I think he said, the Report makes clear that the Committee was fully conscious of the disadvantages of the cohabitation rule and that it would have liked to recommend its abolition if a reasonable and viable basis for doing so could have been found. Here you have a Committee, which has been sitting for a considerable time, giving a considerable amount of thought to this matter, bringing to it a good deal of competence and ability, yet

539
it has been unable to find an alternative to the problem. In the end the Committee concluded that a cohabitation rule should be retained because of what it gave as the overwhelming argument in its favour; namely—and I come back to what I have just said—that it cannot be right to treat unmarried women, who have the support of a partner, both as if they had no support and better than if they were married. This is the Report of the Finer Committee which the Government are proposing to take into account and which the Supplementary Benefits Commission, who are considering the matter, will be looking at as well.
The report of the Child Poverty Action Group, I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, I have read with some considerable interest, because those of us who have worked in the professional social work field cannot but acknowledge the tremendous contribution that that organisation has made over a number of years in this area. I would not want to say anything that would in any way lessen one's own respect for what it has done in this field. The report was based on information obtained from a number of particular cases. These are mainly cases in which the woman felt sufficiently aggrieved to consult somebody associated with the Child Poverty Action Group, and it is to be expected that they would include a high proportion of hard cases. But I think it would be wrong to assume, because it is possible, as it will always be possible, to produce a number of hard cases in which there are a number of unsatisfactory factors, that this disquieting picture represents the situation in every case.
It has always been acknowledged that cohabitation is a difficult field where marginal cases are bound to arise, and it has never been claimed that the administration of the rule can be proof against mistakes occurring. In their 1971 Report on the administration of the rule, the Supplementary Benefits Commission themselves were, I would say, almost brutally frank. They went on to say:
" … it must be apparent that mistakes and errors of judgment sometimes occur, in a service totalling some 18,000 staff, many of them reflecting the values of the local community in which they live, and all of them subject to the tensions inherent in the changing
540
society of which they are a representative cross-section."
In admitting that mistakes are sometimes made and complaints received, the Commission must not be taken as undervaluing the care and thought characteristic of the service which is given in the vast majority of cases, for which the community has, I think, reason to be grateful. Indeed, in view of the emotional problems involved I think they undertake a very difficult job well; and I think that this would be an appropriate moment to say that, knowing that there are complaints, knowing that there are criticisms, knowing that people have quite properly complained about the way they have been treated, I think we ought not to get the thing out of perspective. I think we ought to acknowledge that the investigating officers, who are seeing a large number of people over a year, by and large do a very good job.
I have attempted to explain briefly that there has always been a cohabitation rule, and I have said to your Lordships that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have under review the operation of the rule as it applies to supplementary benefits and that the Secretary of State has asked them to include in their consideration the question whether any change is desirable in the relevant provisions of the Supplementary Benefit Act, and to report to her on their findings. I think the Government acknowledge that people are not very happy about it, but the question arises as to what one can do in the light of the responsibilities that a Government Department must have in the expenditure of public money—and this, in the last analysis, is something that I think we have to take into account. But I know that both the Secretary of State and the Supplementary Benefits Commission are proposing to consider very carefully what has been said this afternoon in your Lordships' House. They are going to take into account not only the document published by the Child Poverty Action Group but also the Finer Report, and I hope that the outcome will be that perhaps some formula can be found which will be more acceptable to a large number of your Lordships.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he saying anything about the two specific Finer recommendations; namely, first,

541
the continued benefit pending appeal where there is a dispute of fact, and, secondly, that the money for children should go on for three months instead of four weeks? Because are not both these questions of policy for the Government to decide, and not for the Commission?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, all I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that these two matters, along with several others, are being referred to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I take his point about the responsibility being with the Government and not with the Commission, and perhaps he will allow me to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to what he has said.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down for the second time, could he say what has happened to the recommendations in the Fisher Report? Are these also being reviewed at the same time?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, My Lords. My recollection is that some of the recommendations of the Fisher Committee have already been put into effect. I cannot remember offhand what they are, but I think there are two recommendations of the Fisher Committee which have been put into effect. Their recommendations, too, will be referred to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, because as the Commission started a review earlier this year it seems to me only sensible that they should look at the matter from every angle, and every angle must include the Reports in question.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down for the third time, may I remind him that I asked whether he could undertake to see that there would be a woman on all the tribunals. I wonder whether he would undertake to give that some thought.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will certainly give the noble Baroness an undertaking that I will pass this view on to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness will appreciate that I cannot do more than that at this stage,
542
but it is a very valid point and I shall be very happy to act upon it.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Fourth Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Thirteenth Report from the Select Committee made on certain Statutory Instruments and the following Instruments which require Affirmative Resolution:
Hop Gardens (Replanting and Restructuring) Scheme 1974;
Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1974;
Draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) Order 1974;
Draft Regional Employment (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) Amendment Order 1974; the said Report to be printed.

  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  LEAD CONTENT OF PETROL
  FLAG POLES AND STATE VISITS
  FLAG POLES AND STATE VISITS