Sitting of 11 December 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Tied Cottages
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average level of rent paid by retired agricultural workers and widows of retired agricultural workers living in housing belonging to the landowners and farmers who previously employed them.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): No official statistics are available. But, judging by data in respect of serving farmworkers, I would expect the average to be low. And I would not be surprised if the majority paid no rent at all.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does not the Minister agree that these rents are likely to be extremely low by current standards and that if tied cottages were abolished and their rents put on a fair rent basis, the increases would be savage? Will he not further agree that the Government's proposals to abolish the tied cottage system are likely to cause great distress to elderly people living in these cottages? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Strang: I reject utterly the implications of the hon. Member's remarks. The Government have no intention of raising farm workers' rents savagely.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of farm-workers living in tied cottages; and how many of these workers are called
    628
    out on emergencies more that 12 times per year.
    Mr. Strang: It can be inferred that at least 70,000 farmworkers live in tied Cottages in England and Wales. But there are no official estimates on this or the frequency with which they are called out on emergencies.
    Mr. Ashton: Did not the Tavistock Report State that, of the farm workers in tied cottages, 50 per cent. Were never called out at all and, of the other 50 per cent., a third were called out Probably less than twice a year? Does not this make a mockery of the farmer's Claims that the industry could not run without the tied Cottage System?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Tavistock Report, from a fine, independent inquiry has been monstrously misrepresented by certain sections of the farming industry, including farmers and landlords.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will the Minister accept that a third of those in tied cottages have retired and are therefore unlikely to be called out, and that the same research to which he referred indicated that a majority of those living in tied accommodation thought it essential for some farm workers to live in tied accommodation in order to do their work properly? Does he understand that the weather waits for no man?
    Mr. Strang: I was brought up on a farm and know a little about agriculture and farm workers, but let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member that we have no intention of introducing legislation that will prevent farm workers from continuing to live on farms.
    Miss Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that in 1948 34 per cent. of farm workers lived in tied cottage accommodation, and that in 1975 there are 55 per cent. who live in tied accommodation? Does not this indicate that the farmers are able to hold their labour force in general in the industry only through the tied cottage system and low wages? Will my hon. Friend give a firm pledge that the legislation to abolish the tied cottage system will be introduced by St. Valentine's Day?
    Mr. Strang: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not sure when St.

    629
    Valentine's Day is, but I give her the assurance that there is no weakening in the Government's resolve to protect farm workers from eviction and from the threat of eviction in the future.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that herdsmen are called out on emergencies twice a day at milking times and that no herdsman in his senses wishes to walk back to his village in between the two milking times? Is it not a fact, further, that every kind of research has proved the hon. Gentleman to be wrong, and that persons who live in tied cottages like to live in tied cottages?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what this issue is about.
    Mr. Evelyn King: I have milked. Has the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Strang: I have milked, and by hand, too. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that under our new legislation farm workers and dairymen will continue to live in their present houses and that nothing will be instantly changed. What will change is that a farmer will not be able to get a farm worker out of a house solely on the basis of agricultural need.
    Mr. Beithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the particular problems which may arise in agricultural employment in border areas such as Northumberland if the agricultural tied cottage system is abolished in England but not in Scotland.
    Mr. Strang: It is too early to say whether any such difficulties will arise. This will depend on the form of legislation introduced by my right hon. Friends and whether local situations would in any way be affected by the separate timetable for Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) on 22nd October—[Vol. 898, c. 458–9.]
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise that, whether this proposal proves a success or a disaster, there is a danger that agricultural employment could, for a time at least, be more attractive on one side of the border than on the other?
    630
    Does the Minister recognise that it is of the utmost importance that the farm-worker should have a house near his job when he wants one, and that, if he is prevented from obtaining a house because no alternative arrangements have been made for retired workers, due to lack of money in local authorities, he will be in no way helped?
    Mr. Strang: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am confident that our legislation will turn out to be an enormous success for agriculture. The hon. Member has raised some important issues. Although we are introducing a Bill on devolution, we shall not solve the problem by redrawing the English border so that it corresponds to farm boundaries.

    Cod Supplies
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made to find alternative catches for cod fishermen.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Cod stocks on existing grounds are fully exploited and there are no alternative areas in which the British fleet might be deployed. However, work is being continued on other fish resources which we might utilise.
    Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware that the search for alternative resources following the Law of the Sea Conference is vital and should be proceeding now?
    Mr. Bishop: I recognise the hon. Member's concern. As he will be aware, we have had monitoring voyages and the results have been very encouraging, especially with the blue whiting taken in mid-water trawls off the British Isles in the spring. The matter is being researched by my Department. There is the question of processing and, eventually, marketing, but we are doing our best to find alternative species to help the industry.
    Mr. James Johnson: As catches in Icelandic waters provide a large percentage of the total catch of fleets from places such as Fleetwood and Hull, can my hon. Friend tell us whether there is any likelihood of a resumption of talks and also what is happening towards getting a settlement of this vexing dispute?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's constructive question. He will be aware that the waters around Iceland provide one-third of our cod catch and are very important to us, especially in the light of what I said in reply to the previous supplementary question. I understand that there is a possibility of a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Icelandic Foreign Minister today. We hope that we can get a resumption of talks at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. McNamara: In view of the importance my hon. Friend attaches to this matter, can he say what progress is being made in discussions on the EEC common fisheries policy? How many meetings have been held at ministerial or official level? What sort of catch for the British Isles does my hon. Friend consider suitable? How many men will be employed and what range of vessels will be used?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this matter, which is very important if we are to give confidence to the industry about its future shape and prospects. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the Community as early as last April that we could not wait until 1982 to renegotiate the Treaty of Accession in this respect. He said that it was urgent because we had the largest fishing industry in the Community. Proposals are being prepared by the Commission and I should not like to comment on them now except to say that they are being discussed at official level and that Ministers are involved.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware that a promise has been given that these measures will be announced this week? Can he give the House some advance information about them, as they will be made public knowledge by the European Parliament in the next five days?
    Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend will be in Brussels early next week. The question of how soon the Commission's proposals are published is a matter for the Commission. We shall want to study them very carefully before making any further pronouncements on the matter.

    Whale Products
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had concerning his refusal to take steps to prohibit the import of sperm whale products into the Unted Kingdom.
    Dr. Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the policies now adopted by the United States Government and the Government of New Zealand on the banning of whale products, if he will now reconsider his policy not to do the same.
    Mr. Bishop: I have received a number of letters from conservation societies and others on the extension of the existing ban on the import of whale products to cover products of the sperm whale. I believe that products from the sperm whale should continue to be exempt from the ban since stocks of sperm whales are not indanger of over-exploitation and because certain industries would face very real difficulties if these products were not available. However, United Kingdom research into satisfactory substitutes continues with Government encouragement.
    Mr. Tuck: Why did my hon. Friend refuse to accept a parcel of sperm oil substitutes delivered to him for examination this morning by the Friends of the Earth? Is he aware that there are adequate substitues for all uses of sperm oil and that I have a list of them with me if he wants to see it? Does he realise that the whale may disappear from our oceans and never return? Will he at least follow the example of the United States and New Zealand by banning imports of sperm oil products and work towards a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling as resolved at the Stockholm Conference?
    Mr. Bishop: I shall clarify the position. I am aware that many hon. Members were told that the Friends of the Earth were meeting me today. Unfortunately, I had not been told. The Friends of the Earth later wrote to tell me that they would see me at 9.30 a.m. when, as Opposition Members know, I was involved in preparing for a Commitee

    633
    debate. I wrote to the Friends of the Earth saying that I would see them this evening, and I am looking forward to doing so. I am sorry that there has been a mix-up in communications. In any case, I do not accept gifts.
    For many years I have been concerned about finding ways to conserve whales. We have not done any whaling since 1963 and we are actively concerned with research into substitutes for sperm oil. Those who want an immediate ban on the use of sperm whale products must recognise the consequences to industry and the costs, because the oil is very important to us. We are pressing for the use of substitutes as soon as we can find them.
    Dr. Glyn: I am not as interested in the lobby of the Friends of the Earth as I am in the preservation of the whale. Does the Minister agree that there are alternative substances, either natural or synthetic, which can replace sperm oil, whether in the manufacture of ladies' gloves or for other purposes? Will the Minister's Department look into the question, not necessarily from the point of view of a 10-year moratorium, but to see whether we can bring ourselves into line with two other Governments—New Zealand and the United States—both of which have considered this matter seriously? Will the Minister tell me of one product which cannot be replaced synthetically?
    Mr. Bishop: Substitutes for the manufacture of ladies' gloves are not to hand, but we are pursuing the possibility of substitutes. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern—and that of others—but I remind him that the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has given us advice, which we accept. In the International Whaling Commission talks in London—which I was honoured to open—an amendment, called the Australian amendment, was passed, categorising the scarcity of species. We are aware that we must try to keep all the members of the Commission together, because if members do not co-operate, nothing can be done. We are very much seized of the importance of this matter.

    Home-Grown Food
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further
    634
    statement on the progress to date towards the objectives contained in the White Paper Food from our own Resources."
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of the import saving which would result from the increased availability of home-grown food processed by British food firms, he will accelerate the introduction of the measures advocated in the White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources."
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I refer the hon. Members to the reply which my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 23rd October. In the Annual Review, which has now started, we are reviewing the state of the industry in the light of the strategy set out in the White Paper.—[Vol. 898, c. 222.]
    Mr. Latham: Do not the deplorable September livestock returns show clearly that agriculture is moving backwards? Is not expansion threatened, first, by the Government's capital taxation policies and, secondly, by their biased attitude towards tied cottages?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. Beef prices show a return of confidence which has been caused by my being able to obtain a premium system, which has worked. The hon. Gentleman must also recognise the return of confidence that is developing in the milk industry. Milk production has increased considerably over that of last year.
    Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than making agriculture a political football, as the Opposition often do, it would be better for the country if my right hon. Friend were to consider the setting up of an all-party Select Committee to examine the industry and determine how to put into effect the policy contained in the White Paper "Food from our own Resources"?
    Mr. Peart: The setting up of a Select Committee is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I resent the gloom-mongering of some hon. Members. I think that confidence is returning.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the figures for the cattle

    635
    breeding herd, the dairy herd and the pig breeding herd are all down? I could enumerate more. Is he satisfied with investment in agriculture? Does he not feel that Government policies militate against further investment? Is he satisfied with the level of profitability of the food manufacturing and processing industry which is, in my view, minute? Does it allow for expansion and encourage new investment?
    Mr. Peart: We still adhere to the White Paper "Food from our own Resources", which reveals the Government's strategy. I accept that for various reasons there has been some measure of retrenchment, but I cannot accept the gloom that some people purvey in the House and outside. In the dairy sector, which is important for the beef sector, and in the livestock sector, including beef in hill farming areas, there is a considerable improvement in confidence. I intend to hold on to what I achieved in Brussels for the beef régime.
    Mr. Hardy: Far from the September livestock figures being unsatisfactory, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the pig breeding herd is substantially larger than it was a year ago—by 14,000 animals—and is not that evidence that he is pursuing his policy as effectively as possible?
    Mr. Peart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reference to the pig breeding herd as another example of confidence returning. The same also applies in the cereals sector. There are still great problems of inflation, which affect not only the farming community but all sectors. I am anxious that the Price Review determinations and what I achieve at the negotiations in Brussels will help the farming community.
    Mr. Jopling: I accept that things are not so bad as they were. However, will the Minister please stop describing as gloom merchants those who refer to his figures showing that agricultural production is likely to be severely reduced this year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the target contained in the White Paper is a 3 per cent. expansion in the five years to 1980? Is it not likely that this year's overall production will be 7 per cent. down rather than 3 per cent. up, and, therefore, that for the re-
    636
    maining four years we shall have to expand at the rate of 5½ per cent. rather than 3 per cent.? Will the Minister make sure that that rate of expansion is achieved?
    Mr. Peart: That figure was not a target: it was an objective. I cannot be specific each year about the annual rate of production. All I am saying is that there has been a period of retrenchment in the industry over this year, but in certain key commodities there has been an improvement. Milk production will be greater than it was last year.

    Hill Cow Suckler Herd
    Dr. John A. Cunninghamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement concerning his policy towards the future role of the hill cow suckler herd.
    Mr. Peart: The hill cow suckler herd is important both with regard to the economic position of the hill areas and as an integral part of the beef breeding herd. The White Paper "Food from our own Resources" recognised that beef production rather than dairying could make the best use of resources in the uplands, and the Government expect the hill cow suckler herd to continue to play an important part in future beef production.
    Dr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that returns to producers in England from this source are still not yet up to the levels in 1973, as his Department confirmed in a recent answer? Given the significant increases in costs of fertilisers and feed to farmers on hill and upland farms, what proposals has he in mind to increase their returns and to maintain the viability of areas such as West Cumbria, which he knows so well, in this aspect of agricultural policy?
    Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend, who represents a hill farming area, is anxious that the hill farmers—and particularly those who are responsible for the suckler herds—should have confidence and adequate returns. Calf and store cattle prices at the autumn sales have been considerably higher than last year, and in some cases are back to 1973 levels.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister say why the Government will not pay the hill cow subsidy in full, as recommended by his counterparts in Europe?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have said over and over again that I shall reexamine this if necessary but I believe that the firmness of the market shows that returns are adequate and that there is confidence. We are also operating the less-favouredareas directive.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although things have marginally improved in the hills, there is a very long way to go and a great deal of difficulty still for those producing beef in the hills? Is it not necessary, therefore, to give them some injection of confidence?
    As the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) has just suggested, would not the payment of the full Community level of subsidy be one way of doing that? Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, unless this is done, there will be a drying up of production from the hills? Is it not the foreign buyers who are buying and improving the market for calves from the hills?
    Mr. Peart: European Community aid is a matter which we shall consider when we have our discussions on prices, which will be very soon.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland his recent statement about the increase has been welcomed in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone where this subsidy is being paid at the moment? Will he have a serious look at parts of North Antrim and County Londonderry? Will he also extend the increase there?
    Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I take an interest in Northern Ireland agriculture. I have visited the area, and I know Antrim and Londonderry. I shall look at this with special reference to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and when I have made my investigation of it, I shall write to him.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the National
    638
    Farmers' Union to discuss the problems of the horticultural industry.
    Mr. Strang: The current Annual Review will provide the opportunity for such discussions.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that the National Farmers' Union is very concerned that growers in the glasshouse sector will be very severely hit by the recent heavy increase in the cost of fuel oil, which represents such a very high proportion of their costs? Is he also aware that Holland, Belgium and Germany are assisting their glasshouse growers with the cost of fuel oil to the full extent agreed by the European Community?
    If the Minister is not prepared to give our own growers in the glasshouse sector similar assistance on a national basis, will he at least press for an agreed Community scheme to be put into force so that our growers may be able to compete fairly?
    Mr. Strang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way the oil companies have decided to increase their prices will have an adverse effect on horticulture. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that, if we are to remain in the Community, we ensure that competition is fair. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Commission is now challenging the Dutch proposals and the Dutch scheme.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Lea Valley it is estimated that the increase in the price of oil and other expenses in the coming year will add at least 19p to 20p to the cost of a 12 lb. box of produce? Is he aware that this is extremely serious and that in relation to the Dutch, who get their fuel so much cheaper, our industry is placed in such a difficult situation that it will face extinction in due course unless something is done? Will he give further consideration, therefore, to the recommendation for a subsidy if some other agreement cannot be arrived at early on to give our industry the protection it needs?
    Mr. Strang: I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern and interest in his horticultural constituents. I would point out that in Holland the bulk of the heating comes from gas, and the European Commission is seeking to force up the

    639
    price of gas. However, I accept the basis of my hon. Friend's remarks. Certainly the Government are anxious to see the continuance of a prosperous and efficient horticultural industry.
    Mr. Hicks: I acknowledge that the European Economic Commission is investigating the matter in respect of Holland. However, will the hon. Gentleman recognise the urgency of the position for our domestic growers? Will he ask his right hon. Friend when he goes to Brussels next week to investigate the possibility of rationalising the method of aid to national growers, thus doing away with the accusation of unfair competition?
    Mr. Strang: I do not quite understand that question. However, as the hon. Gentleman's leader is seated beside him, I may as well put the point that there is a limit to the extent to which Opposition Members can press for Government subsidies for private industry at the same time as complaining about the public sector borrowing requirement.

    Farm Modernisation
    Mr. David Walderasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the net cost of farm modernisation schemes last year.
    Mr. Strang: Have we come to Question No. 9? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]
    The net cost of farm modernisation schemes in the United Kingdom for the calendar year 1974 was £83·2 million. This figure covers grant expenditure under the farm capital grant schemes 1970 and 1973, the horticulture capital grant schemes 1973 and the Farm and Horticulture Development Regulations 1973.
    Mr. Walder: Is the Minister aware—apart from the fact that he is answering Question No. 9—that that figure is inevitably disappointing, bearing in mind the effect of inflation on farmers, and, of course, the decline in the value of money? How does he square that with the objectives set out in his own White Paper?
    Mr. Strang: There is a problem here in relation to the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme by which we have been required to lay down certain conditions as a result of membership of the Community which are bureaucratic and which we are seeking to simplify. We
    640
    hope that this simplification will considerably increase the uptake.

    Eggs
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received representations concerning the possibility of large quantities of eggs being imported from France in the first quarter of 1976; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend has received representations on these lines. Sales of French eggs in this country have, however, recently been at relatively low levels and the sales in other markets have increased. I have no evidence to suggest that this trend, which has in part been encouraged by Community action, will be reversed.
    Mr. Hardy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on sorting out the tangle of difficulty with arsenical additives and so on. However, will he bear in mind that there are fears that the continuing over-production of eggs in France seems likely to lead to dumping in this country in the early part of 1976? Will my hon. Friend also note that a recent attempt to sell British eggs in France has been entirely unsuccessful, and will he draw this fact to the attention of British consumers in the hope that they will not overlook that reaction?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and I take note of his comment about the difficulty of selling British eggs in France. However, by changing the situation with regard to the use of arsenical additives we have at least now made it possible to export eggs to France. But it is a matter of being competitive. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that France sent us only 2,100 boxes of the estimated total of supplies in the week ending 23rd November—total supplies that week were 727,000 boxes—representing only ·38 per cent. of our total supplies. There are also other indications that export restitutions are encouraging the export of eggs from France to third countries, and I understand that check placings in the Community in the first half of this year were down on last year's figure.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Actual size in this matter is not important. Will the

    641
    hon. Gentleman assure the House that exports in both directions are being treated by Governments on both sides of the Channel in exactly the same way?
    Mr. Bishop: We are very sensitive about the importance of this matter. Now that we have made it possible for British eggs to be exported, we want to make sure there is freedom in this situation. We are in touch with the French authorities and, indeed, with the Community to bring about a greater stability in supply and demand in relation to eggs.

    Meat (Cold Stores)
    Mr. Matesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of unprocessed meat is held in cold stores in areas covered by the Dock Labour Scheme.
    Mr. Peart: The information available to my Ministry about food held in cold stores does not distinguish between stores located in ports to which the Dock Labour Scheme applies, stores in non-scheme ports and stores elsewhere in the country. The total quantity of unprocessed meat other than poultry meat held in public cold stores on 21st November 1975 was 102,000 tons.
    Mr. Mates: As we import over 500,000 tons of meat, carcase meat and offal, which has to come through cold stores, will not the new Dock Work Regulation Bill have a very serious impact on our food supplies should there be a dispute in that area? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) have pointed this out on separate occasions to the Secretary of State for Employment, to no avail, will the Minister take his right hon. Friend to one side and tell him that, above all, our priorities must be our food supplies and not that particular piece of dogmatic Socialism?
    Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is crying "Wolf" too soon. The Dock Work Regulation Bill was given its First Reading only the other day. It provides that the National Dock Labour Board should consult me. I believe that that will help considerably. I do not wish to disturb imports of food into Britain
    Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might have been more appropriate if the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) had paid a little more attention to dogmatic inefficiency, and particularly to the dogmatic inefficiency of the intervention scheme of the Common Market whereby there are three times the amount of beef in cold store as a result of intervention and 1,200,000 tons of dried milk?
    Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend probably knows, Question No. 15 relates to intervention. I shall answer him then.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that if the present Dock Labour Scheme, which covers 3 ½ per cent. of cold storage capacity in this country, were extended to the five-mile band, it would cover 63 per cent. of our capacity? Is he further aware that his support for the Bill has caused wide dismay in that, in the event of a strike, the Bill would have sinister implications for food supplies for the British housewife, and sinister implications for fanners, as there may be a danger of stopping up the supply of feedingstuffs for British livestock?
    Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is crying "Wolf". After all, the Bill will be debated, and there are safeguards: I have given one example, on consultation. Furthermore, I believe that unions act responsibly.

    Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was borrowed from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation last year.
    Mr. Bishop: During the year ending 31st March 1975 loans amounting to £37·9 million were made to the industry by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited.
    Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, as I understand it, this is less than that borrowed in the previous year. Taking into account inflation, capital costs must be higher. Is the hon. Gentleman happy with this situation? Does he believe that there is sufficient confidence in the industry and that people are not laying off borrowing money for capital development—which is needed to attain the target

    643
    specified in the White Paper—because of threats of additional capital taxation?
    Mr. Bishop: As the hon. Gentleman has implied, there has been a decline in lending during the past year. That has happened for a number of reasons, including reduction in land values, cash flow problems and high interest rates. There are already indications, which have evidently even trickled through to the Opposition Front Bench, that there is greater confidence in the industry now. We expect that, with the working out of the White Paper and with the forthcoming Price Review, this confidence will accelerate.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the levels of interest paid on loans from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation are very high? Is it not time to look at the rates of interest—rarely above 5 per cent.—paid by European farmers on loans from the various organisations in the European farming industry?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the rates charged by the AMC are governed by the cost of the money which the Corporation raises from time to time by debenture issues on the money market and which reflect the long-term nature of its borrowings. However, the rates are competitive with those that farmers would have to pay elsewhere. In the long run, the real answer is to tackle the problem of inflation, because that will help to resolve some of these difficult issues.

    Skimmed Milk (EEC Stocks)
    Mrs. Millie Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of skimmed milk stocks in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peart: The total amount of skimmed milk powder held in storage by EEC intervention agencies on 27th November was 1,083,000 metric tonnes.
    Mrs. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the distaste with which the housewife of this country hears about the over-production of food and of its ultimate storage at heavy cost to the taxpayer? Is he aware that in the Common Market countries every cow is being sub-
    644
    sidised at the rate of £ 40 per head? Does he realise that this is a situation that in the end will cause the complete collapse of the common agricultural policy and with it our dairy farmers, who are unable to compete with the inefficient dairy farmers in Europe?
    Mr. Peart: I have always accepted that surpluses of that kind are wasteful. That is why we are trying, through the stocktaking exercise, to readjust the Community's policy. This problem does not exist only in Europe. Many other parts of the world, such as the United States of America and Australia, have the problem of surpluses of skimmed milk. I am aware of the problem.
    Mr. Marten: One of the Commission's proposals to get rid of the surplus of dairy products is a two-tier price system for this country's milk. Will the Minister assure us that he will oppose that and virtually veto it if the Commission should persist?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I appeared before the Scrutiny Committee the other day and discussed part of this matter with his colleagues and himself. I shall note the point. It will inevitably come up in Brussels. On the main issue, I believe that these surpluses should be dealt with quickly. It may well be that they will have to be disposed of in food aid elsewhere. However, above all I stress that the United Kingdom is a very efficient dairy producing area.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE
    Mr. Pattieasked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Trade.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
    Mr. Pattie: Does the Prime Minister recall that during the course of his disastrous performance here last Thursday he told the House that the referendum result had been utterly decisive? How does he reconcile that degree of finality with his right hon. Friend's membership of a Labour Party watchdog committee designed to monitor the activities of the

    645
    EEC? Can we now take it that the doctrine of collective responsibility has been finally laid to rest?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this matter. I have read the transactions of this particular committee. I did not think that it was particularly a Labour Party committee. I understood that some Opposition Members were on it. The Committee specifically said that it accepted the decision of the referendum.
    Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members do not share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie)? Will he also accept that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade have a golden opportunity next week to appear as Santa Claus in Lancashire, providing that they are prepared to listen to the voices of the united Labour movement through the TUC, the Labour Party conference, the Parliamentary Labour Party yesterday and the liaison committees at work in Lancashire and throughout the country on the subject of import controls? Will he accept the invitation to appear as Santa Claus and not as a star character in "A Christmas Carol"?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend could have added to that list the CBI. Neither the CBI nor the TUC is in favour of generalised import controls for our balance of payments, but they take the view—we have said that we accept that view—that where sectors of industry that have a future are being threatened for their very existence by imports in a world depression, we must look at the matter.
    This matter has been fully investigated and I have every confidence that a statement will be made in the House before we rise. However, there is a problem. Negotiations are still taking place on the very difficult Chrysler problem. The Chrysler problem could involve this matter. I do not want to say more than that. That is why there has been the delay.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I wonder whether the Prime Minister could clarify a statement on import controls that was made in the House last night after Ten o'clock. The Minister of State, Treasury, in reply to a question by my right hon. and learned
    646
    Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), gave an assurance that there were no secret negotiations on the subject of import controls. Does that mean that there are no negotiations at all, or that the Prime Minister is going ahead without them?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that question. I have not seen the particular words used, but I accept her account of them. There have been no negotiations on this matter—if by that is meant international negotiations. Certain procedures have to be followed. Those procedures have not started for the reasons I have just given to the House. Therefore, there is no question of any secret negotiations taking place, but procedural consultations in accordance with our international obligations would be necessary in certain circumstances. I have explained to the House—I have perhaps gone further than any of my colleagues in this matter—that the issue has been held up because of the difficult situation, which is still continuing, concerning Chrysler. Indeed, negotiations are taking place today.

    SPECIAL ADVISERS
    Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister if he will reduce below the present figure of seven the number of his special advisers; and what is the present total cost of the salaries of these advisers.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The total annual cost of salaries for the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street is about £ 43,000.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what areas of Government policy would have been less damaging to the country had the advice of these gentlemen not been followed? Since advice is always available to the Prime Minister from the Tribune Group—presumably free of charge—does he not think that it would be more appropriate for the salaries of this rather discredited retinue of Marxists to be paid by Transport House rather than by the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that might go down well with the Primrose League in Eastbourne. If I thought that

    647
    it was right to waste the time of the House and prevent other hon. Members putting serious questions, I would simply tell the hon. Gentleman that this was in accordance with the provisions laid down by the Fulton Committee. My predecessor had special advisers who were paid for by the Treasury. The suggestion that Dr. Donoughue is a discredited Marxist makes me laugh.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the CBI.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 25th November.
    Mr. Latham: Will the Prime Minister tell the CBI when next he meets it whether he accepts the warning in the Bank of England's December Quarterly Bulletin that public expenditure must take a smaller proportion of our national resources if the economy is to regain its strength?
    The Prime Minister: I spoke on these lines about the base not only at the Guildhall recently, but when I addressed the National Council on Social Services yesterday. I shall tell the CBI that the whole House, I hope, is encouraged by the CBI's latest survey on industrial trends, and I hope that some hon. Member—perhaps some right hon. Member—will get up and say so.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving an added impetus to the growth of the economy by limiting hire-purchase restrictions?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot anticipate the statement on the economy that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we have the debate on the economic situation next week.

    SELF-EMPLOYED
    Mr. Paul Deanasked the Prime Minister whether he will now allocate to a senior Cabinet Minister special responsibility for the self-employed.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council told the House on 24th July 1975, matters arising from the diversity of the activities and interests of the self-employed do not form a coherent whole, important though they are, and are better handled on the basis of existing ministerial responsibilities.
    Mr. Dean: Is the Prime Minister aware that in answer to recent questions I have been told that there have been no meetings with the self-employed about the proposals in the Gracious Speech? As the self-employed and small businesses play a vital part in our economy, surely they are as entitled to be consulted as the big battalions, the TUC and the CBI?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has an important point here. However, it is not an argument for having a Minister with responsibility for the self-employed. For example, some of the self-employed are principally concerned—I am thinking particularly of those in the retail and wholesale trades—with the activities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and others are concerned with purely industrial questions. In my contacts with the CBI I have always felt that it was fully responsive to small businesses and it has made many representations on their behalf. At the CBI's quarterly councils small businesses predominate in the representation.
    Mr. Thorpe: Even if we accept the Prime Minister's premise, is it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Social Services should use her powers to vary by order the national insurance contribution and put it up by 8 per cent. on gross profits of over £ 3,600 without reference to the self-employed and apparently without any idea of the increased number of bankruptcies that this might create? If he will not allocate a Minister, is there not at least a case for there being greater consultation or, to put it at its lowest, as much consultation as he is prepared to have with the TUC and the CBI?
    The Prime Minister: There is the fullest consultation with the Ministers responsible. The House had a full debate on this matter on 4th November. All

    649
    such questions as those in the right hon. Gentleman's mind were fully dealt with in that debate, which is better by far than to try to deal with them at Question Time.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House are in full support of the fullest possible assistance being given to small business men? Is he aware that some people who are supposedly self-employed, particularly in the construction industry, have a record of avoiding tax and national insurance payments and are therefore a threat to the very structure of that industry? Will he make it clear that, although we support the genuine small business man, we cannot accept the bogus self-employed?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has on a number of occasions pressed this point, which is fully accepted in the construction trade. He will recall that the House legislated on this matter in the previous Session. However, he is right to point out that there are many anxieties, outside the particular group of people to whom he referred, about the problems of small businesses.
    My right hon. Friends and I have given a great deal of attention to this matter. We are trying to find some way—I cannot guarantee that it will be easy—to provide some kind of help for small businesses. A number of proposals have been sent to us from many quarters. I hope that the House will co-operate in this matter, too. We have been looking, for example, at the question of differential interest rates, and so on. It is an extremely difficult matter, but we are trying to find a way of helping small businesses.
    They get help on exports. Some of them are remarkably sucessful and get the fullest possible help. I think that the whole House would wish us to do more if we could find a way of doing it which could not be abused.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister how many visits he has made to Scotland in the last 12 months.
    The Prime Minister: I have visited Scotland on six occasions in the last year, Sir.
    Mr. Steel: The Prime Minister will recall that a fortnight ago he disparaged my initial reactions to the White Paper on devolution. Does he accept that every newspaper in Scotland, whatever its political viewpoint, has fundamentally criticised the White Paper? Will he now enter into detailed—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Record".] I said every newspaper in Scotland, regardless of its political viewpoint. I am not aware that the Daily Record is a Tory newspaper. Every newspaper in Scotland, regardless of its political standpoint, has criticised the White Paper. Will the Prime Minister now enter into serious discussions between the parties before publication of the Bill on how best to improve the White Paper?
    The Prime Minister: The House, as I do, always takes full account of the advice that we get from newspapers, whether north or south of the border. These important constitutional issues are for right hon. and hon. Members elected to this House to decide in the last resort. My right hon. Friends and I have answered a number of questions on this matter.
    I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was a little nettled by what I said in answer to a previous Question. I think I used the word "squalor"—I agree that it was a bit rough—about the fact that, not for the first time, the Liberals voted with the Conservatives. I am still looking at this Christmastide for an appropriate word to describe what we read in the Press this morning—namely, that the Liberal Party Whips, the Scottish National Party Whips, and all the rest are meeting the Tory Whips. God help them.
    Mr. Radiceasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Sweden.
    The Prime Minister: I did so last July, but I have at present no plans for a further visit. I met the Swedish Foreign Minister here last week.
    Mr. Radice: When my right hon Friend visits Sweden, will he examine how the Swedes have managed, under

    651
    successive Labour Governments, to combine a high and rising level of public expenditure with an expanding economy? Does he agree that we have much to learn from Swedish labour market policies, particularly in training and retraining, and that shortages and ineffective deployment of skilled manpower remain among the chief obstacles in the way of successfully expanding the British economy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I believe that the Swedes lead Europe on the subject of retraining. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter many times with Prime Minister Erlander and Prime Minister Palme. The Swedes provide far more resources and facilities for training than almost any other country. The importance that we attach to this area is shown by the fact that, despite present constraints on public expenditure and demands from other people that we should cut public expenditure to ribbons, we have made extra funds available to the Manpower Services Commission for training and retraining no fewer than three times this year, making a total of about £ 70 million. I agree that that is nothing like what the Swedes do, but it is very important in assisting training. It is providing about 45,000 additional training places, over three-quarters of them for young people.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Prime Minister consider that the happy situation which his hon. Friend described might have something to do with the fact that the marginal rate of taxation of income and wealth tax combined in Sweden is lower than the marginal rate of taxation on incomes alone in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome that intervention. Sitting as he does below the Gangway, the right hon. Gentleman may tell the House something which his Front Bench has not told us—which expenditure the Conservatives would cut in order to cut taxation.

SEEMA BHOLA (ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL)
Mr. Shersby(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the
652
circumstances in which Seema Bhola was refused admission to Hillingdon Hospital and subsequently died following eventual admission to Wexham Park Hospital, Slough.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express my deep sympathy with the parents of Seema Bhola in their tragic loss.
I have made urgent inquiries as to the circumstances of her death. The first approach to the National Health Service was an emergency call from the police for an ambulance at two minutes past seven on Tuesday evening. The ambulance left within a minute and arrived at the patient's home at seven minutes past seven, which was within five minutes of receiving the call. At that time the police were already giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, which was then continued by the ambulance staff.
It was known that the accident and emergency departments at Hillingdon Hospital and at Mount Vernon Hospital were closed to ambulance cases, but the ambulance officers also knew that some emergency cases arriving at the door were being seen at Mount Vernon Hospital.
The ambulance drivers were informed that no doctor was available at Mount Vernon Hospital after they had gone one mile, but as they were then passing Hillingdon Hospital they turned into the hospital but were then redirected by the ambulance control to Wexham Park Hospital. On arrival, at 33 minutes past seven, Seema Bhola was then seen by a casualty officer and found to be dead. The exact time of death is uncertain.
An opening inquest will take place tomorrow at High Wycombe, and the coroner has decided to hold a full inquest at a date yet to be determined.
Some of the reports suggest a conflict of evidence, and I have therefore asked for an immediate report from the Hillingdon Area Health Authority, and I shall then consider whether to hold a formal inquiry.
Mr. Shersby: I should like to associate myself with the Minister in expressing deep sympathy with the parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bhola, on the loss of their young child.

653
Does the Secretary of State realise that in the eyes of my constituents and millions of decent people it is her responsibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I repeat, it is her responsibility to see that patients can gain immediate admission to hospital in an emergency? Does the Minister realise that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute with the doctors, it is the Secretary of State's duty to ensure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that the hospitals are open night and day? Does not the Secretary of State agree that the time has come to resolve the unhappy dispute with the doctors so that my constituents can gain admission to hospital when they need urgent treatment?
Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expresses her deep sympathy. The reason she cannot be here to answer the Question is that she is preparing to see the junior hospital doctors at just about this moment in a further attempt to resolve the dispute.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider whether he should withdraw what he said. Under the perfectly normal procedure of the House, to bring to the attention of the House concern about a constituent's case, concern which we all share, the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to make a serious allegation against my right hon. Friend. At a time when the whole House wants a resolution of the dispute, he has personalised the attack in a political and—as I think most people outside the House will feel—a disgraceful way. I make this plea to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity. It will not help the atmosphere, either in the resolution of the wider dispute in the country or in dealing with the tragic circumstances of the death of this child, if personalised attacks of that sort are made. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation.
Mr. Shersby: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister one supplementary question.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had serious doubts whether I should allow this Question. I thought it right to allow it so that we could possibly ascertain the facts, in the chance that by ascertaining the
654
facts in this case a similar tragedy might be avoided. I had no intention of allowing it to become an argument on the merits of the doctors' dispute.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Thatcher—Business question.
Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without dissenting from your ruling, may I point out that you have now allowed one question from one side of the House which gives a totally false and damnable impression of what hon. Members think about this case? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to calm down. I have allowed the Minister to speak extremely frankly. It is not a matter of one side or another. The Minister said exactly what he thought. I have been perfectly fair. If the hon. Gentleman would use that kind of epithet about me, he must do it by motion.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have allowed an hon. Member to make a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and have not permitted an expression of view from this side of the House, I believe that you should allow an hon. Member on the Labour Benches to put a point of view which contradicts that advanced by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will calm down. I allowed the Minister to express his view very firmly. He has done so in no uncertain terms. I have been perfectly fair.
Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), if I can call him the hon. Member, made a statement to the effect that my right hon. Friend is responsible for the death of a child—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened carefully, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) did not say that. However, he brought in the whole question of the hospital dispute. He did not make the direct suggestion that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)

655
claims. I would not have allowed him to do so.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman said that the responsibility for this situation rested on my right hon. Friend. I am certain that any hon. Member who thinks about the matter will not accept that proposition. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement dissociating herself from the standards and shameful remarks of her hon. Friend. If she does not—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will calm down. It is a difficult problem for the Chair to know when to allow a Private Notice Question. In this instance I considered it proper to do so as I thought that some facts might be brought out which might obviate a similar tragic event. I allowed the hon. Member for Uxbridge to ask a supplementary question and there was a robust reply from the Minister. I think that the House would be much wiser to move on to the business questions.
Several Hon. Members rose—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 15TH DECEMBER—Debate on the Rate Support Grant Orders.
TUESDAY 16TH DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day], when the House will be asked to pass outstanding Votes.
Debate on the motor vehicle industry.
Motion to approve paragraph 9 of the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 22), relating to the exclusion from the precincts of Mr. Knight and Mr. Schreiber.
WEDNESDAY 17TH DECEMBER—Debate on employment and on measures for saving jobs.
Motions on the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations, on the Winter Keep (Scotland) (Revocation) Scheme, and on the Weights and
656
Measures Act 1963 (Biscuits and Shortbread) Order.
THURSDAY 18TH DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
FRIDAY 19TH DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment, until Monday 12th January 1976.
Mrs. Thatcher: If we are to have a debate on the motor vehicle industry on Tuesday, may we expect a statement on the Chrysler position tomorrow and not later than tomorrow? May we also expect publication of the CPRS Report before the debate, the report having being promised by the beginning of November? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect or has he read that last week his right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that there would be a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in good time before the debate on unemployment? May we expect that statement on Monday?
Mr. Short: Negotiations are continuing on the Chrysler position. My right hon. Friend has had a further meeting with Mr. Riccardo and his colleagues this morning. A statement will be made to the House as soon as possible, and, hopefully, early next week. I shall consider the point that the right hon. Lady has made about the CPRS Report. I shall see whether it is possible to publish the report before the debate.
Regarding the measures that I announced for the debate on Wednesday, the Chancellor does not have it in mind to make a statement before the debate. I have considered the precedents during the previous Conservative Government's term of office, and there are many precedents for not doing so. In view of the content of the Chancellor's measures, I do not think it would be appropriate for him to make a statement before the debate.
Mrs. Thatcher: It looks as though we are not to get the Chrysler statement before we are expected to debate the whole motor vehicle industry. Many of us would have expected to have it well before the debate. Further, we would not expect to be denied the information contained in the CPRS Report. We are well aware that a complicated and difficult decision has to be made about Chrysler, but that

657
makes it essential for the House to be informed as well as the Minister.
Mr. Short: I agree with the right hon. Lady, and if it is possible to make a statement tomorrow I shall see that it is made. Clearly we cannot make a statement before we have reached a solution. The statement will be made as soon as possible. As regards the CPRS Report, I shall see whether it is possible to make it available before the debate. I shall do my best about that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I ask for the help of the House. My efforts to curtail the last item of business were not altogether successful. I must inform the House that nearly 40 right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the debate on the death penalty. I hope that hon. Members will ask brief questions about the business of the House.
Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House make a statement as soon as possible about what has happened in Icelandic waters—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield).
Mr. Les Huckfield: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my hon. Friends recognise the urgent need for a statement to be made on Chrysler as soon as possible, but take the view that it is far too important a statement to be made on a Friday? Does he recognise that many of us would appreciate a statement on this most important matter as early as possible before the debate on the motor industry?
Mr. Short: I promise that the statement will be made at the earliest possible moment. The House will be sitting tomorrow and it is a working day. I realise that many hon. Members visit their constituencies, but I think that the House is entitled to have this information at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have a statement during the course of the day about what happened this morning in Icelandic waters? It appears that the Icelandic "Thor" has opened fire, has been holed and is hove to. It seems that assistance has been offered to her by our craft.
658
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate for the House to have the opportunity to be told precisely what has happened in the short term? In the long term, may we expect an opportunity to debate the whole matter? What Iceland is doing is totally indefensible since we are prepared to negotiate on the whole matter.
Mr. Short: I understand the concern of the House on this matter. I shall pass on urgently to my right hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) have said. I cannot offer any time for a debate before Christmas. I think that the only opportunity before Christmas will be the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: So that hon. Members may make meaningful contributions to the debate on the motor vehicle industry next week, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make available the CPRS Report and also the Government's reply to the Report of the Expenditure Committee on the motor vehicle industry, for which we have already waited many weeks?
Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot promise that that document will be available for the debate, but I shall try to see whether it is possible to make the CPRS Report available to the House.
Mr. James Johnson: May I inform my right hon. Friend that I support the plea made by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) about the serious occurrence off Iceland? I have not heard the details, but, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, it is a terrible business if shots have been fired in Icelandic waters. We should like to have a statement as quickly as possible.
Mr. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I shall start work on that matter as soon as business questions have been concluded to see what can be done.
Mr. Peter Walker: The Leader of the House said that he will try to make available the CPRS Report. Whatever the difficulties, there is no reason why he should not make a copy available in the Library.
Mr. Short: I have said that I shall look at the matter and do the best I can.
Mr. Kilfedder: I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the importance of an early debate on the report relating to the Northern Ireland Convention. Will he ensure that the debate will take place in the first week after the House returns from the Christmas Recess so that we may avoid a political vacuum in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Short: I appreciate the need on that score, and there will be a debate on Northern Ireland very soon after we return. I cannot absolutely guarantee that debate in the first week when we return after Christmas, but I shall do my best to arrange a debate as soon as possible.
Mr. Lipton: My right hon. Friend said that at the end of business next Tuesday the House will debate the Report of the Committee of Privileges. May we have an assurance that adequate time will be afforded and that the rule will be suspended if necessary?
Mr. Short: The rule will be suspended, and the House will note that I tabled only one point for debate. I felt that it would be unfair that the matter should hang over the heads of the two journalists concerned during the Christmas Recess. The other point involving Privilege raises much wider issues. I am sure that the Government and the whole House will wish to have more time to think about the matter.
Mr. du Cann: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the previous arrangements for business were cancelled and why there will not now be a debate before Christmas on the five Reports of the Public Accounts Committee? Does he not agree that it is unsatisfactory that discussion of Reports made by the senior Select Committee of the House should be delayed in this way, particularly when they constitute the only audit available to the House on Government expenditure and perhaps its only potential check? Will he further agree that it is the Government's duty to support the work of Members in this House in this regard if the Government believe that the work is as valuable to the House as it used to be when the Prime Minister was its distinguished Chairman?
Mr. Short: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the Public Accounts Committee. As he knows, it was intended to debate those Reports next week, but in view of the Chrysler debate, the debate on unemployment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's package it has not been possible to find time for a debate. I shall find time for a debate as soon as possible after the recess.
Mr. Stonehouse: When does my right hon. Friend intend to table a motion for the Christmas adjournment?
Mr. Short: I think the best day for such a debate would be the day on which the House deals with the Consolidated Fund Bill—namely, Thursday of next week.
Mr. Peyton: On the subject of the debate on the motor industry, it will surely be difficult to hold that debate without the answer to the Expenditure Committee's Report and the CPRS Report. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of State, Department of Industry is on record as saying that these documents would be available before any debate on the motor industry in this House. If the Government's view is that they cannot give the House an answer to the Expenditure Committee's Report before the Chrysler situation has been settled, is not this tantamount to saying that more money for Chrysler will mean less money for Leyland? Is that not the unfortunate result?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman remember his promise given a fortnight ago that the Government would make a statement on the National Enterprise Board? The Patronage Secretary appeared last week to go a little beyond that statement.
Mr. Short: If I may deal with the second point first, I undertook to make a statement. I shall do so next week. I am looking carefully into the matter. I am examining our practice in regard to the nationalised industries and about setting up the Board. It has taken a rather long time and I apologise, but I hope I shall make a statement to the House before the House rises.
In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point about the CPRS Report, I shall do my best to see that it is made available if that is at all possible. I can

661
give no undertaking about any Government reply to the Report. There will be the usual opportunities, subject to the agreement of the chairman, to debate this matter in due course. However, I shall examine the whole question in response to what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about import controls—a matter that is of great concern to many hon. Members—before the House debates the employment situation?
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. There will be a statement on import controls next week either before the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or, much more likely, in his speech in the debate.
Mr. Biffen: In view of the importance of Tuesday's debate, is it not imperative that the Report of the Central Policy Review Staff should be made available to this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be the final mockery if we have to turn to the Sunday Times to find the information?
Mr. Buchan: On the subject of the Chrysler situation, we recognise that Friday is a working day in two senses since almost every hon. Member has to be in his constituency. Therefore, if a statement on Chrysler is made tomorrow, no doubt it will be made in the morning. Therefore, hon. Members would like to know whether that statement is to be made tomorrow. I hope that I shall have a reply on this point. If not, may I continue my question?
The problem we are facing is that presumably a decision either has or has not been made. If a decision has been made, will my right hon. Friend please guarantee to assure hon. Members, who are gravely concerned about the Chrysler situation and who may be visiting Chrysler factories tomorrow, that if a statement is to be made it will be made tomorrow? If the decision has not been made but the decision is reached tomorrow, will he consider informing us
662
at that point? May I please have a reply on that matter? Am I to receive a reply?
Mr. Short: I cannot answer my hon. Friend until he sits down. I am quite willing to answer. He put some very sensible points, and indeed human issues, concerning the way in which we carry out our business. I shall see whether it is possible to find some satisfactory way this evening of informing hon. Members whether there will be a statement tomorrow. I hope that the House will appreciate the difficulties. Negotiations are now taking place. They may go on until late tonight. A solution may be reached tonight or it may not. It may be reached tomorrow morning. If a settlement were reached early tomorrow morning, it would be wrong for the Government to withhold that information. It is a difficult situation, but I shall do my best to inform hon. Members tonight before they go away whether there will be a statement tomorrow.
Mr. Buchan: I thank my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether early in the Session in 1976 we may debate the Report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage?
Mr. Short: Many hon. Members are interested in that Report. I shall bear in mind the possibility of a general debate on that topic when time becomes available.
Mr. Roy Hughes: May the House have an early debate on the steel industry? To put the matter modestly and mildly, I must remind my right hon. Friend that the industry is in a truly deplorable state. In view of the fact that the British Steel Corporation is a publicly-owned concern with ultimate responsibility to this House, does the Leader of the House agree that there is some merit in meeting this suggestion?
Mr. Short: I recognise that the world recession is having a considerable effect on the steel industry. There will not be a debate next week, but sometime in the new year we shall have to debate the steel industry.

TERRORIST OFFENCES (PENALTY)
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move,
That this House demands capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death.
Twelve months ago to the day this House, by a majority of 152, decided that it would be an uncivilised step or that it would provoke more terrorism if terrorist murderers were to suffer the death penalty. I have tabled this motion to give hon. Members an opportunity to reconsider that decision. I hope that hon. Members—Mr. Bernard Levin notwithstanding—will regard this debate as timely, bearing in mind the immense concern of public opinion throughout the country.
I make it clear to the House that this is a motion only, requiring a declaration in principle only. It would be for legislation in due course to work out whether, for example, capital punishment would apply in Northern Ireland, what is the best definition of "terrorism", whether the introduction of such a penalty could be temporary, or even the method of execution. I hope that it will not be assumed by any hon. Members that a vote for the motion is necessarily a vote for death by hanging.
This is also a motion of the most limited and narrow kind. It is not for all murder, only terrorist murder. It does not cover injuries, however serious, as a result of a terrorist offence. By framing the motion in so narrow and restrictive a way, I hope to attract to my support a number of hon. Members who would not necessarily support capital punishment but who believe that an exception must be made for murders committed by terrorists.
Mr. Evelyn King: My hon. Friend dealt with a list of exclusions upon which I should like him to expand. He will realise that a great many terrorists are girls of 19 years. Is he in favour of execution for girls as well as men?
Mr. Lawrence: The answer to that question will become clear if I am allowed to develop my argument.
Put shortly, we should have capital punishment for these offences for three
664
reasons: first, because the more civilised so-called deterrent of life imprisonment has blatantly failed to deter a significant number of terrorists; second, because more innocent lives would be saved if we had the death penalty; and third, because this House cannot continue flaunting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of those whom we represent.
Before I give my reasons for holding these three views I shall say only two things. Divided as the House might be on means, we are all united upon certain ends. We all abominate terrorism, we are all determined that the terrorist shall not win and we all want to save lives. Some hon. Members on opposite sides may even agree, as I believe the Home Secretary was near to agreeing the other day, that there might be no objection to a terrorist forfeiting his life in some circumstances. Therefore, if I should express myself strongly in the course of my remarks, I hope it will not be taken as implying any disrespect towards those who hold a contrary view to mine.
I also hope that by advocating capital punishment it will not be thought that I enjoy doing so. It is a penalty that I find utterly nauseating and repugnant but no more so than the slaughter and carnage by which the terrorists destroy the lives of innocent people.
So to my argument. It is relevant to begin by reminding the House how we, in England, have fared since we decided that life imprisonment was no less a deterrent for terrorist murder than capital punishment. On the very day of our debate last year a bomb went off at the Naval and Military Club, Piccadilly, and one man was injured. On 17th December four people were injured by two bombs, one planted at the Draycott Avenue telephone exchange and the other at Chenies Street exchange. One person was injured and one was killed. The next day 17 were injured when two bombs went off in Bristol. The following day a 100lb. car bomb went off outside Selfridges and five people were injured. Two days later a bomb went off in Harrods injuring two and the next day an attempt was made upon the life of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
On 23rd January this year three people were injured at the waterworks at Walthamstow, and four days later 20 people

665
were injured in three blasts at Lewis's store in Manchester, at a jewellers in Kensington and at a boutique in Victoria. On the same day three bombs were defused. Here I pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of those men who defused those bombs. They were defused at Hampstead, Putney and Bond Street.
After a lull of seven months, anyone who believed that the terrorists had at last been deterred by the decision of this House had a rude awakening. A blast at a public house at Caterham injured 33 men and women. I keep saying "injured", as the cold statistics do, without explaining what sort of injuries were incurred. The people in that public house had their legs and arms blown off. These bombs usually also deafen and blind their victims. The day after the bomb blast at Caterham, six people were injured in Oxford Street. The following day a brave bomb disposal officer was blown to pieces trying to save the lives of others.
On 5th September 63 people were injured and two died when a bomb went off in the foyer of the Hilton Hotel. The following week two letter bombs injured their openers. A week later a bomb exploded at the Portman Hotel injuring three. On 25th September two people were injured in a public house at Maidstone. On 9th October 20 people were injured and one died when a bomb went off at Green Park underground station. On 13th October many were saved from destruction by yet another brave officer at Lockets Restaurant. That bomb was loaded with iron screws deliberately to cause hideous wounds.
Ten days later a bomb under the car of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) killed an eminent physician and injured a passer-by. On 29th October, 18 people were injured while eating at a trattoria in Mount Street. Within a week three more were injured when another car was blown up in Connaught Square. On 9th November a bomb was defused outside the house of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup. Three days later one person died and 15 were injured at Scott's Restaurant and six days later two people died and 23 were injured at Waltons Restaurant. Both bombs had been loaded with ball bearings.
666
Meanwhile a cache of explosives had been found in a block of flats in Southampton. I ask hon. Members to consider the possible implications of that. On 27th November Mr. Ross McWhirter, whom many of us remember today, was murdered on his own doorstep.
In all, since this House last voted that life imprisonment was the best we could do by way of a deterrent, there have been 30 bombs, 243 people injured and 10—by divine Providence only 10—people killed in England. The violence has got worse. The bombs now come without warning and have been planted more indiscriminately. They have been made more bestial in their nature and we have had the first doorstep assassination.
I have recited those horrible facts not so that hon. Members should be sickened, though they will be sickened, or to twist their minds in bitterness against the perpetrators so that they abandon their powers of judgment, but to remind hon. Members how great is the responsibility that we bear in this place if we do not take action to stop this bloodshed and also to prove the one unanswerable fact that life imprisonment has not turned out to be a deterrent. As one of the wives of an IRA bomber called out when her man was sentenced for the Guildford bombing, "It is all right, you will not serve your sentence". There is a widespread belief that when we are forced to withdraw our troops from Northern Ireland there will be an amnesty for political terrorists.
Therefore, could we have done any more? Can we still? Would capital punishment deter? The British people say that it would. The majority of this House may say that it will not. However, have hon. Members asked themselves by what superior knowledge they set themselves up as experts on the workings of the criminal mind'? This is not a complicated question. It is a question of simple motivation on which the ordinary man or woman is as expert as any Member of Parliament, or a senior police officer, come to that.
If hon. Members do not trust the judgment of the ordinary voter whose judgment returned them to this place, whose judgment should they trust? Who better than the IRA itself, the people we seek to deter? The IRA makes it quite clear that it considers capital punishment to be a

667
deterrent. Why else does it administer capital punishment as the ultimate sanction against those who break its code? Does it do it because it does not believe in it? Let us consider why O'Connell, the IRA leader, considered it necessary on the day we debated this subject about 12 months ago to threaten this House with the death of two British soldiers for every terrorist sentenced to death? Was that because he wanted us to vote for capital punishment? If he wanted us not to vote for it, why was that?
The answers are not difficult to give. The IRA leader knew that capital punishment would deter some of his supporters—not, of course, every fanatic, but those who provide the back-up, those who make the bombs, steal the detonators, drive the cars and harbour the perpetrators after their act of devastation. O'Connell knew that the security forces would get more information which would lead to the reduction of his force if the person concerned had as much to fear from the State as from the IRA. On this occasion, therefore, the common sense of the British people and the view of the IRA coincide. They believe that capital punishment would provide some deterrent to some people, and those views are quite good enough.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Member make clear whether the people he thinks might be deterred—those who are involved on the fringe of terrorist activities—will be subject to the death penalty for these activities? That is a crucial point in his argument.
Mr. Lawrence: The ordinary laws would apply. Those laws say that all those who are a party to a criminal act are as guilty of that act as the final perpetrator.
I ask everyone here whether in examining his conscience he can swear this afternoon that it is not possible for capital punishment to be a deterrent for some people in some circumstances. If he cannot swear that, he is admitting that capital punishment may be a deterrent for some. If so, it may save some lives, and if it may save some lives, which the alternative has clearly failed to do, are we not failing in our duty if we do not provide even that degree of protection for our people?
668
It is only part of my argument that lives will be saved by capital punishment. However, if I am right so far—and I noticed that even the anti-capital punishment leading article in The Times yesterday said that capital punishment would be a deterrent—then let us consider the arguments of hon. Members who are opposed to it. How do they show that more lives would be lost with capital punishment than would be saved by its deterrent aspect? They say, as I understand it, that martyrs would be created to inspire more terrorists; hostages would be taken to secure the release of those awaiting death; there would be reprisals; juveniles would be used; more people would hide terrorists; juries would acquit more often; the public would not allow a 19-year-old girl to suffer the death penalty; capital punishment is uncivilised; and demand for it is vengeance and contrary to God's teaching.
I hope that I have introduced all the arguments which will be arraigned against my case. I concede that some of them have some substance, but I contend that none of them has much substance. If I am told that God's teaching is to be found in the Bible and that it is against capital punishment, I answer that it depends on which page of the Bible one is looking at. If I am told, as the Archbishops said in their letter to The Times yesterday, that judgment should be left to God, I reply that since the Almighty has not seen fit to stop the blood-letting and the carnage of years of terrorism He must be leaving that particular judgment to us.
If I am told that capital punishment is an uncivilised punishment, I agree, but we are living in an uncivilised society where the civilised punishment of life imprisonment has been tried and has failed to deter. Now we must try something less civilised. I say that we shall not enjoy the luxury of a civilised society until we get rid of terrorism, and the best way of doing that is to get rid of the terrorists.
If those who speak for the death penalty are accused of being after vengeance, I say that for some of us that may be true and that for others it may not. Even if it were true, however, is it not better to institutionalise our feelings of vengeance and for the State to be vengeful on

669
our behalf, after due and proper judicial process with all its built-in safeguards against conviction of the innocent, than that we should wreak our vengeance, to quote the Economist of last week,
"in prison cells, resisting arrest, or down dark streets on substitute victims by a society frustrated at what it sees to be the law's inadequacy"?
Would friends and relatives be more likely to hide a terrorist? More likely than what? More likely than now when, under the stern regime of life imprisonment, hardly anyone is caught in England for want of a harbour? Would more juries acquit? That might be possible sometimes, but would hon. Members want juries not to acquit where they had doubt as to guilt? Have hon. Members stopped trusting juries? Even an unjustified acquittal to avoid the death penalty would not necessarily mean the release of the prisoner. It would almost certainly be open to the jury to convict of murder without terrorism, or of manslaughter if it were thought that the accused was guilty but should not suffer death. What of the situation of 19-year-old girls? A sympathetic jury might ensure that such a girl received a long prison sentence even if it did not want her to die. However, there are some girls of 19 years and 20 years whose crimes are so hideous that juries would want them removed from this existence.
Would juveniles be used more often? That is possible, but that is only speculation. The juvenile would not die from capital punishment as a result of this motion being passed, and subsequent legislation would, of course, ensure that according to the ordinary rules of the law of the land the juvenile would not suffer the death penalty. The terrorists would soon stop using juveniles to do their dirty work when the work began to be bungled and the children brought the police—and the death penalty—very quickly to their door.
What of the more practical objections based on arguments about martyrdom, and the taking of hostages and reprisals? Before the will of the people is overridden, surely opponents of capital punishment have at the very least to show that martyrdom is likely to make more terrorists than would be deterred by the death penalty. I do not believe that they can
670
show that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Show the opposite."] Those who rely on this argument cannot use the argument about the extended use of juveniles as well. If terrorists want to gain support through execution, they will not hide behind juveniles. Nor can it be argued that martyrdom does not already exist for those who languish in prison.
It is not only death that creates martyrs. Life imprisonment does the same, but with an added feature. Martyrdom of the dead is largely a question of anniversarial celebration, while martyrdom of the prisoner is continuous. Above all, is not the martyrdom argument a cruel misjudgment of the Irish people? It presupposes that they are behind the terrorists and would make martyrs of them. Am I not right in saying that the Irish community in the United Kingdom and in southern Ireland despises the terrorists as much as we do? It is one thing to be fighting in the cause of independence with the mass of the people behind you, but the chances of martyrdom are much reduced when the people are against you. After the pageantry of the funeral, how many who have died in the cause of the IRA in recent years are now remembered?
The situation is similar over hostages. Do not the opponents of capital punishment have to show that more hostages will be taken and that there will be more death or injury caused by the death penalty than would be deterred by it? Again, those who rely on the hostages argument cannot at the same time use the martyrdom argument. If the terrorist wishes martyrdom he is unlikely to take hostages to ensure his release. The taking of hostages by hijacking airliners has in recent times been to release people from imprisonment. Capital punishment will reduce the opportunities for taking hostages since kidnapping to release a terrorist is a waste of time after the terrorist is dead.
Mr. Tom Litterick: The hon. Member has raised the point three times, but he seems unable to understand the important factor about martyrdom. The dead do not make themselves martyrs. It is posterity that makes martyrs of the dead. That is the psychology of martyrdom.
Mr. Lawrence: In other words, the person who dies has to have the support

671
the people behind him. My point, as the hon. Member would have heard if he had been listening, was that the Irish people are not, now that the fight for independence is over, behind these traitors who murder people.
I was approaching the question of reprisals. Of course, any terrorists who are left after capital punishment has been used may exact reprisals, but it will be easy to tag every killing as a reprisal even though it is not. The House will remember that the murder of Ross McWhirter was claimed to be a reprisal—not against capital punishment but against the treatment of IRA prisoners in a Northern Ireland prison.
Who is to say whether more will die because of reprisals or because we have given way to the terrorists—that he, the terrorist, seeing our fear and our weakness, will not redouble his murderous efforts? For we should make no mistake—if the terrorist believes that we are frightened of his threat of reprisals into not introducing capital punishment, he will have gained a victory, whatever excuses we may use to explain why we did it. If we allow the law-breaker to dictate our laws instead of the law-maker, is not that the beginning of the end? Will not every extreme group in Britain start trying to do the same thing? Will not terrorism spread? And will our cowardice then avail us?
On the question of martyrdom, hostages and reprisals, I can only conclude that there is a real chance that our failure to take this action will in the end escalate the violence, the killing and the terrorism. Certainly, those opposed to capital punishment have not yet made out any case that more lives would be lost by having capital punishment than would be saved by its deterrent aspect.
I said at the beginning that the failure of the soft option and my belief that capital punishment was a deterrent were not my only reasons for asking hon. Members to join me in the Aye Lobby, My third main reason both strengthens my belief that terrorism would be reduced and gives me my greatest reason for concern if this motion is not carried. I believe, quite simply, that it is now becoming dangerous for Parliament to ignore the demands for capital punishment being made by an
672
overwhelming majority of the British people. Eleven days ago, a public opinion poll gave the figure of 88 per cent. of our people supporting this motion. The strength of feeling will be well known to hon. Members from the post that we have all received.
I know all about Burke's principle that we are representatives and not delegates, that we are here to give our independent judgment, and I will make no party political point about that. But Burke would have been the first to say that we should not ignore public opinion. He would be the first to say that our judgment should be made taking public opinion into consideration. When public opinion is so considerable, should we not take considerable account of that opinion, especially when it is as informed as ours and especially when the public are as much in jeopardy as we are?
I do not see that it matters very much whether the public have this opinion partly because they desire vengeance or partly because they think that a unique crime should be marked by a unique penalty—or because they believe that we are fighting a battle with the IRA with one hand, or with both our hands, tied behind our backs. If they also believe that society will be safer if we have capital punishment, that is the important matter.
What worries me is the likely consequences of our refusal to introduce it. It should also worry hon. Members who believe that the violence will only escalate if we have capital punishment. Let me read to hon. Members a typical letter that I have received in my post:
"As the Law does not protect me, my Family or my House, I will have to depend upon myself, and will do so. In my House, I have a deterrent and will not hesitate to use it. I now depend upon myself."
Do hon. Members really not see here a most serious threat to our society?
Is it not at least likely that an increasing number of our people will come to share, if they do not already, the view that Parliament is irrelevant, that our laws are irrelevant and that they need not be obeyed? Is it not at least probable that more people, in their immense frustration, might resort to self-help and that with self-help will come greater lawlessness, retaliation, reprisals and, I am afraid, quite possibly, counter-terrorism?
Mr. Brian Walden: May I suggest to the hon. Member that Burke might have said something else? He might have said that someone who intended to take the law into his own hands was not a "typical" British person and he might have suggested that no Member of Parliament should quote him in such a way as to appear in any sense to give countenance to such rubbish.
Mr. Lawrence: Burke might have said anything that the hon. Member supposes him to have said. All that I am doing is repeating the argument which is commonly put, that we are here as representatives, using our own judgment. That is an argument which I recall the hon. Member himself using when he saw fit to quote Burke in the similar debate this time last year. But what I am saying is that if people, in their immense frustration, are going to resort to this sort of retaliation, reprisal or counterterrorism—if that is even a possibility—we should do something about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scaremongering."] Before hon. Members start shouting about "scaremongering" and saying that it is "ridiculous", I hope that they will pause to remember precisely what happened in Northern Ireland—a part of this country.
Do hon. Members not remember that, for a long period at the start of the current Irish troubles, there was no violent reaction from the Protestant Loyalists but that, when time and experience had led them to believe that the forces of law and order were no longer adequate protection for them, some of them took to the gun and there was an escalation of violence and terrorism? Can any hon. Gentleman deny that?
The very thing which happened in that part of the United Kingdom, albeit on a much less moderate scale—I have read that letter to show some indication that it could happen—could even begin to happen here.
It is my belief that Parliament and the people have far more to fear from saying "No" to capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death than they have from agreeing to this motion. It is because I believe that and because the British people believe it that I have moved the motion.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should announce that I have not selected either of the amendments.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I begin by saying that I have some sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in the sense that I sympathise with the depth of his detestation of these offences and of the crimes which have been committed.
I had thought that, after seeing politics degenerate in the way they have in British and Irish public life over the last decade, there was little left that could shake me until I heard of the death of Ross McWhirter. What shook me even more was that, at a function that evening. I was talking about the killing to a reasonable member of the community. That person then said "It was awful, but, after all, we must remember that Ross McWhirter had stuck his neck out a bit." Is that not appalling? Is that not shocking? Is it not disgraceful that people could take into consideration the views that a person had in judging whether or not they condoned his being gunned down in cold blood? In that sense, therefore, I share, as I think does every hon. Member, the deep horror of the hon. Member for Burton at what has happened.
I also have some sympathy with the hon. Member, because a year ago, when we debated this same matter, I confess—an unusual thing for a Member of Parliament—that I came into the House in some doubt about how I was going to vote. I believe genuinely in all the old arguments for the abolition of the death penalty for what might be called civilian murder, but I also believed that they did not apply to the new situation in which we were placed, that those arguments did not apply directly to terrorism and that this was a new situation.
For this reason, I take some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Burton. I take, for example, the point about the sanctity of life. We are in a war situation. We are dealing with people who are trying to overthrow our Government and to change the direction of that Government by the use of sheer terror and force.

675
Secondly, I believe that the deterrence argument is overdone by the abolitionists. I know it is true that there is no direct correlation between those countries which have and those which do not have the death penalty and the murder rates in those countries. But it must also be agreed that in certain cases people are deterred by this fear. If that were not the case, why would the IRA consider shooting people suspected of informing, and why would the IRA make it clear to people committing outrages "Do not worry. If you are caught, it means just imprisonment. Then there will be a political settlement and you will be released, so that it will be over very soon"? Those are arguments to which I give considerable importance, though I do not take them as far as the hon. Member for Burton.
Then I accept some of the hon. Member's final points. If there is a great weight of opinion in this country in favour of any proposition, we need not follow it if we do not believe it to be in the national interest. But we must pay great attention to it, and we in this House must think carefully before we reject an opinion which is widely spread outside.
Having covered the points on which I agreed, in part, with the hon. Member, I turn to the substance of the matter. As I said just now, I came into this House a year ago in some doubt. I made up my mind finally when I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), in whose constituency one of the foulest outrages took place, and when I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Ever since, when I have thought about it, I have come more and more to the conclusion not that the death penalty was inherently wrong but that as a practical matter it would not help us to diminish IRA outrages. This is a question for everyone's judgment, but I put it to the House that I am treating this solely as an empirical, practical question: would capital punishment increase or diminish the chances of defeating these people who are attacking our society in this way? I have come to the conclusion that it would diminish our chances.
I want now to rehearse the arguments which have led me to that conclusion.
676
First, there are arguments of practical detail. On this issue I disagree with the hon. Member for Burton. The practical detail matters in this case. It is while the detail is going on, while attention and publicity are focused on the case, that the miserable argument goes on: was the accused—perhaps a woman—a teenager or an adult; had she full knowledge of what she was doing? It is while that is happening that public opinion forms around a case.
So I put some of the difficulties. The first is the practical question that we are proposing by this motion the introduction of the death penalty for one category of offences only—terrorist offences. How do we define them? I have tried various methods of definition. If we try to define them by the weapons used, do we suggest seriously that it would be permissible to hang someone for shooting Ross McWhirter but that if he had been stabbed to death it would have put the crime in a different category?
Can we define terrorism by the category of person attacked, confining it to the police or to some other special group? Again the answer is "No", because it is the general public whom we have to protect against these outrages.
Can we define it by motive? To take this wretched case of Ross McWhirter again, if that were the law all that the gunman would have had to do was to whip out Mr. McWhirter's wallet and say that his motive was theft. I know that the question of definition is not an insuperable argument, but it is a difficult one, and a member of the other place, a distinguished lawyer in the Conservative Party, said more or less that there would have to be two trials—by a jury to find the person guilty, and the other by a panel of judges to determine whether it was a terrorist offence.
In addition to the problem of definition, we have the agony of how to choose which persons should be put through this arraignment. Is it the person who plans the crime? Is it the courier who brings the explosive to his country? Is it the person who drives the get-away car? Is it the person—the juvenile or woman—who plants the bomb? Is it the person who gives shelter when the actual perpetrators are fleeing from their crime? I am not saying that these matters could not be overcome, but I am saying that

677
they would cause the kind of argument which would focus attention on the plight of the accused and not on the horror of the crime.
Then there is the question of wrongful condemnation, and it is not to be underestimated when we have rival groups involved such as the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, bearing in mind that so much of the material resulting in convictions comes from paid informers. Why should those in one section of an insurgent group attack another when they can shop them by giving the police false information? It is one thing to say that a person might be hanged in error after a lengthy civil trial, but if we hanged someone after a terrorist trial on what was found to be false information his martyrdom would know no bounds.
Then there is the problem of getting convictions. Who is to convict? It would have to be a unanimous verdict of a jury. Majority verdicts would disappear completely in such cases. In certain parts of the country, however, would juries be willing to come to a unanimous decision and face the terrorist gun afterwards? That is why no one can be convicted in Northern Ireland. That may be a bad argument but it is true. Opposition Members must ask themselves why it is impossible to bring in capital punishment for such offences in Northern Ireland. Who would provide the 12 jury men and women in Northern Ireland with police protection for the rest of their lives? That is the kind of practical question we have to consider.
I turn finally in this list of practical problems to the question of hostages, rescue operations and reprisals. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Burton. If we were in an intolerable situation with hostages and reprisals, nothing would be worse than to introduce this penalty and to be driven off it from fear of further terror. Yet that is the dilemma into which we would be placed.
I do not say that some of these difficulties could not, by themselves, be solved. Together, however, they produce a long-drawn-out agonised trial involving difficulty after difficulty during which public opinion would build up.
Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Gentleman may misread the feeling of the British people. Is he suggesting
678
that it would be difficult to recruit juries to serve on these cases because they would be frightened to bring in a verdict?
Mr. Mackintosh: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that juries would be open to intimidation and pressure, as would witnesses, especially in areas connected with the minority community from whom this kind of criminal is likely to come. We have to consider that when looking at the total feasibility of the operation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The facts of the situation in Northern Ireland are not as they have been made out to be by the hon. Gentleman. In the case of terrorist offences there are no jury trials.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my point for me. When the Gardiner Commission looked at capital punishment in Northern Ireland, it found that of 97 organisations and witnesses giving evidence only two recommended capital punishment.
Having given some account of the difficulties and tensions which would accompany trials involving the capital sentence for terrorism, I turn to what I understood to be the core of the argument of the hon. Member for Burton. He said that life imprisonment or the present level of punishment did not deter. However, the problem is not as he put it. The problem is to show that capital punishment would deter further, and we cannot show that. It cannot be proved one way or the other.
I am sure that every hon. Member, deep down, is bothered about this problem. How is it that the IRA is able, year after year, to recruit young people into its ranks, not from the whole of the Irish community—the Irish community in Britain, that in the Republic or that in Northern Ireland—but from a select minority? How is it possible to recruit from this tiny minority? The second volume of Brendan Behan's autobiography shows how a lovable, attractive, able man, because of the grisly romanticism of the Irish past of bitter struggle, was willing to wrest a gun from the hands of a man standing in a cemetery commemorating the deaths of the Easter Rising martyrs and shoot, not at a British policeman or at any other Briton, but at an Irish policeman. Why was he prepared to do this? It was

679
because of this long myth of struggle against Britain and the romanticism which surrounds these struggles, a romanticism which allows these people to separate horror of the crimes they commit from the kind of people they are and the way they behave, and from the people who shelter them and the lives they lead.
If we are to defeat the IRA, our great task is to drive a wedge between that section of the community which supports it and the IRA itself. The one way to fail to do this would be have capital punishment and create a new generation of martyrs. If there was a time when the IRA and its supporters were standing low in public opinion, it is now—and that is all because of the bravery of one man, the Dutch industrialist, Dr. Herrema.
The bravery and courage of Dr. Herrema has meant that for once the hero's welcome went to the victim of this dreadful offence and not to its perpetrators. I was delighted that when the Coyle girl stood up in court and shouted about the treatment she had been receiving in prison, instead of the shouts of the usual claque of IRA supporters there was a cold silence. Why? It was because the whole Irish community remembered that she had kept that man blindfolded, with his hands tied behind his back and his ears plugged in utter darkness for five days. What had she suffered to compare with what she inflicted upon that man? Because in this case the community remembered the outrage committed and did not sympathise with those who had committed it, the gap between terrorist and victim was there.
But if Dr. Herrema had died and the death penalty had been mandatory and there had been three to six weeks of slow, grisly progress towards the scaffold for the two wicked young criminals, at the end of the day it is they who would have been remembered. Songs about them would have been sung in Dublin pubs, ceremonies would have been taking place over their graves and the feeling that they were criminals would have been lost to sight. The whole process of appeal around these people's memory would have been built up, whereas now the one thing that remains with the Irish people is the disgraceful criminal behaviour in which Coyle and Gallagher had engaged. For
680
once, there will be no new incentive for misguided young Irish men and women to drift into the IRA.
That is how we must combat this form of terrorism. I shall not weary the House with other examples, but it will not have escaped hon. Members that, when the Spanish Government executed five terrorists for murdering policemen, the news of the executions went round the world. Very few people remembered that they had killed policemen and even fewer knew that in the following fortnight nine more policemen and three civilians died in reprisals.
For these reasons, on purely practical grounds, I believe that while capital punishment might deter some individuals it would do an enormous amount for the whole mythology of the small group of terrorists in the IRA.
I come now to the last of the arguments—the view of the House and the view of the outside public. No one has greater respect for this House and its procedures than I have. I believe strongly that we have to decide what is in the national interest. I believe that it not only would be wrong in itself but would be not in the national interest to bring in the death penalty by voting for it because of outside opinion. We simply have to explain to people why we believe in our consciences that they are wrong. If we are wrong, they can reject us. We must not allow gunmen to blow us away from opinions we hold. We owe our unpressurised opinion to the country. Let us act that way this afternoon.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House will appreciate what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said about the murder of Mr. McWhirter. I am speaking for myself in this debate and not for the Opposition, and since many of my hon. Friends want to speak I hope that the House will forgive and welcome a certain telescoping of my argument.
I am well aware that what I have said in the past has been contrary to the views of most of the Conservative Party and most of the country, and I have reappraised them as is my duty. While many of my hon. Friends will disagree with some of the things I say, I hope that

681
it will be possible to narrow the area of difference between the supporters and the opposers of the motion, which was so vigorously moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I hope to put forward at least some propositions which may secure fairly general agreement.
For example, I hope we can all agree on each other's motives. Those who are against hanging do not regard those who disagree with them as excitable and irrational demagogues who are baying for blood. Equally, I hope those who are in favour of capital punishment do not regard their opponents as ineffective dilettantes whose objections to hanging are primarily aesthetic and who place the purity of their consciences above the security of the State.
We are united on objectives—that is, the curbing and elimination of terrorists, the security of the State against its enemies, and the protection of our citizens. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, there is general agreement that, while the old arguments against hanging are certainly relevant, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has pointed out, they no longer have anything like the force in themselves that they have had in the past.
There is almost universal admiration for the police and there is a widespread wish that everything should be done to help them in the fight against terrorists. We all agree that the police must not be hamstrung in their pursuit of terrorists and that their lives should not be additionally endangered by unnecessary restrictions on their ability to defend themselves. This is something the House may wish to consider fairly closely in the future. There is general agreement with the view expressed recently by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the perpetrators of these atrocities have no claim upon the mercy of the State. While there is disagreement on whether it would be wise for the State to exact the supreme penalty, nobody disputes that it has the right to do so.
Finally there is the point of agreement, as both hon. Members have said, that the terrorists are not even murdering and maiming in a popular cause. Very few people even in Ireland want to see a 32-
682
county Marxist Socialist republic imposed by force and terror.
I briefly summarise the case for bringing back capital punishment. First, there is the powerful democratic argument upon which my hon. Friend rightly laid stress—that the overwhelming majority of our people want hanging brought back and that the House should be very chary of flouting that tremendous weight of opinion, particularly on a matter which intimately affects every person's safety.
Secondly, there is the firm belief that the death penalty would deter some terrorists. Thirdly, tere is the conviction passionately held by a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and many people outside, that the death penalty is somehow a symbol of our will to fight and resist terrorism, a symbol of our determination to deter terrorists, and that unless we use all means in our power we are craven and defeatist and deserve to lose.
The symbol argument has great attractions, but a symbolic action would have little value even as a symbol if it had the opposite effect of what was desired. Some say that capital punishment is right and that we must therefore accept any adverse consequences that it might bring. With respect to those who hold that view, however, I think that it is a faulty mode of reasoning. Before deciding on a course of action, it is right that we should try to assess the consequences, and our assessment of those consequences should surely affect the decision we finally take. It is not sensible to consider a decision separately from its likely consequences.
Against the symbol argument, there is what might be called the security argument. When I had anything to do with these maters, none of the leading soldiers or officials concerned with security was in favour of capital punishment. I have no reason to believe that that position has altered. Last year the Home Secretary told us that five of the six leading police men were opposed to capital punishment. Of course, the House will not abdicate its judgment in favour of that of the security forces. The House will make up its own mind. Nevertheless it is worthy of note that, on every other issue affecting the security of the State, most of my right hon. and hon. Friends would

683
give very careful attention and, indeed overriding priority to the apparent views of those in charge of security.
Generals have occasionally been reluctant to use the most modern weapons, but capital punishment certainly does not come into that category and—to quote the analogy of war which is often used in this debate—politicians would surely be rash to insist upon sending their army into battle with a weapon which, in the opinion of their own generals, was likely to do more harm to their own side than to the enemy.
What would be the likely consequences of bringing back hanging? My hon. Friend the Member for Burton conceded that it would be liable to have the effect of securing fewer convictions. I think it is generally accepted that juries are more reluctant to convict when death is the penalty. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend also said, some terrorists would be deterred. But regrettably, here and in the rest of the world, a very small number of urban terrorists can produce a great deal of violence. If some terrorists are deterred, others, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said last month, will be stimulated.
My hon. Friend asked how we could demonstrate this. We can to some extent look at the precedents, which are not very encouraging. This is what Arthur Koestler said in his book "Promise and Fulfilment" referring to 1947:
"On the 31st July, the bodies of two British sergeants were found hanging from a tree near Tel Aviv. They had been murdered by the Irgun.… This was a reprisal for the execution of the three terrorists captured after the Acre Jail attack.
In April, four terrorists were hanged…. The executions were followed by a new wave of assassination, bomb-throwing and mine-laying, which caused fourteen deaths within the next few days: on the scene of each attack the terrorists left a hangman's noose as their signature."
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that support in Ulster and in this country for the IRA's aims is as great as was the support for the Zionist aims in what is now Israel? If so, I believe that he is making a sad mistake, but it is on that that he is basing his argument.
Mr. Gilmour: I did not think I was doing anything of the sort. I was making
684
no judgment on the Palestine controversy. What I was saying was that, although capital punishment had been in existence all that time in Palestine, it had not previously been used. People were sentenced to death but no one had been executed. When it was used, the results were those I have quoted, and I believe them to be highly relevant.
There is a second precedent, which is much more recent, if I may be permitted another quotation
"Whether it was right or wrong to execute the Spanish terrorists, subsequent events hardly bore out the case of bringing back the death penalty to deal with the situation in Britain. If shooting five people convicted of killing policemen was a deterrent, how do we explain the deaths of six more Spanish policement in the week that followed the executions?
The weakness of the 'deterrent' argument is that it assumes that terrorists are amenable to reason. If the justification for the death penalty is argued on the only other ground, retribution, its supporters must be ready to accept the cost. In this case, six more lives."
In fact, nine more Spanish policemen, not six, were murdered. That quotation is an extract from an article in the Police Review.
Of course, we cannot be certain that the same thing would happen here, but it seems to me in the highest degree probable that it would. I think we should be deluding ourselves if we did not expect the execution of a terrorist, either here or in Northern Ireland, to be preceded and followed by a marked increase in terrorist atrocities and reprisals. More soldiers and more policemen would be murdered.
Moreover, at present the IRA enjoys remarkably little popular support on either side of the Irish Channel. For the first time the IRA has put itself almost outside the Irish Republican position. What could be better calculated to revive sympathy and support for it on both sides of the Irish Channel and on both sides of the Atlantic than a succession of executions? The whole cycle of violence, repression, sympathy and support would be restarted, but with far greater intensity than before.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that there would have been widespread support for the Birmingham bombers? Would they have been regarded as martyrs if they had been hanged?
Mr. Gilmour: Not here, but I think possibly in Northern Ireland—and we are concerned with both situations. But the point is that they were not hanged and there has been no support for them at all. There would be a considerable danger of bringing back sympathy if capital punishment were reintroduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton seemed to regard the question of Northern Ireland almost as a detail, but it is very much a matter of principle. Are the supporters of this motion in favour of extending hanging to Northern Ireland? If not, would it be defensible to bring back hanging for terrorism in all parts of the United Kingdom except the part where it is most prevalent? Would it be defensible to bring back hanging without a jury trial?
The arguments on both sides are formidable and the objectives of both sides are the same. Everybody has to make up his own mind, and nobody can be sure that he is right. I am against the restoration of capital punishment because I think that the security argument is even more important than the democratic argument. Because I believe that executions would produce more terrorism and murder rather than less, I shall vote against the motion tonight.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: It is not so much what we say in this Chamber that matters, but what happens outside after we have said it. Coming events have a way of casting their shadows before them, and the sum total of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was rather frightening. The effect of his argument was that terrorists are able to control the operation of justice and the quality of mercy. That is a frightening proposition. It would mean having a situation in which the operation of the ordinary judicial procedures would become uncontrollable. The right hon. Member's arguments are admitted. Executions would lead to further murders and terror would build on terror. What are we to do in this situation? People outside have a gut reaction to the problem, and 88 per cent. want an alleviation or and end to these problems through the return of the death penalty. They want some direction from Parliament about
686
what their future is to be if current events are to become the pattern of law and order in this country. The issue confronting us is: what kind of society are we to become as we slide further down the slope, away from reality and the processes of justice?
Life imprisonment can mean 10 years, 7 years, 5 years or whatever judges, parole boards and the Home Secretary want to make it. Formerly, we had a well-defined statute. This motion will do nothing; it means nothing. We decided in 1957—and we confirmed our decision in 1965—that the death penalty should go, and it has left this country for ever. We cannot resurrect the gallows and the operations of justice which require us to differentiate between capital murders and various terrorist murders. The people outside want to know what we in the legislature are going to do in this situation. Are we men of principle? If so, how far do our principles take us? Not long ago, Great Britain was responsible for the mandate in Cyprus. Mrs. Cutleigh, a Black Watch sergeant's wife, who was the mother of five children was shot down by a Cypriot terrorist. She was a non-combatant and was out shopping at the time. At least two hon. Members of this House, including one who is now a Minister, went on the rampage against the Black Watch when they went out the same night, as any full-blooded Scotsman would, and said: "Let's sort out some of these people." That was a gut reaction, and if we do not understand that we do not understand the people we represent.
I have been through the whole range of philosophers and trained my intellect to think out problems in the manner I want to think them out. If some of my hon. Friends find some amusement in that, they had better get up and say so. Twelve months to the day after I had voted in favour of the retention of the death penalty, three policemen were shot dead in my constituency. Hon. Members should have seen the letters that poured in by the thousand. The distinction between the operations of the legislature and the law courts and the fears of the public should be exercising our minds today.
Whatever the outcome of the quarrels between Irishmen—and they may take a long time to be resolved—the Irish

687
Catholic communities in Great Britain and in Ireland do not support terrorism. The pattern of acceptability, so often seen in the United States, is running through this country. When the first British soldier was shot in Northern Ireland, he was given a funeral with full honours, with the Union Jack draped over his coffin. As hundreds of soldiers die, they fade from the memory and their deaths become an accepted pattern.
The murder of Mr. Ross McWhirter was a doorstep assassination. It is one thing for people to be blown up for an idealistic cause like a unified Ireland, but quite another when someone knocks on a person's door and puts a pistol to his head. It was a poiltical assassination of a man who did what he thought was right to combat growing terrorism in this country. Where do we go from here? We cannot reinstitute the death penalty. As Omar Khayyam said:
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, moves on."
We hear our own Home Secretary, troubled by his conscience, saying that if a person were killed in the execution of a crime he would have no sympathy for him. What does that mean? Does it mean that we are to go back to the days of the Wild West, with people forming posses, or is it an open invitation for the public to do something on their own? That was a dangerous remark. The police must be seen to be the only operative authority for the protection of the public. The Home Secretary's statement left me slightly bewildered. Once we start on this road, we come to the situation existing in all the American homes I have visited when I have been there on lecture tours. When pressed, they all admit that somewhere in the house they have a gun. I do not want that to happen in England. It would be fatal for the British judicial system, which has been copied in many countries. I am sure that each one of us would like it to be used as a model throughout the world, but it will not be unless we recognise this danger.
We have to ensure that when a judge sentences a terrorist to imprisonment the sentence matches the criminal act. Imprisonment should be for a sufficiently long period to act as a deterrent. This matter should not be left to the Parole Board or the Home Secretary; it should
688
rest with the judges, whom no one can direct.
A former Home Secretary, Lord Soskice, who was greatly respected, said that after 10 years a man deteriorated. He thought that no sentence should be for more than 10 years, which means that a prisoner would be out of prison in seven years. That is much too short a period of imprisonment for a person who is guilty of the calculated killing of another citizen, for whatever cause.
Since 1957 the death penalty has disappeared from the legal framework of most countries. We never thought to see the day when there would be indiscriminate bombing of restaurants, and when shots would be fired from travelling motor cars. We never thought to see, on the television screen, pictures of a father carrying the coffin of his 5-year-old child murdered by a bullet. The bullet went astray, but the child was killed.
If the sanctity of life means anything, the House has to make sure that the sentence imposed matches the crime that is committed. We cannot reimpose the death sentence. It is difficult for me to say that, in view of my former opinions, but I am a realist. I realise that time moves on, and changes occur in every aspect of our lives. There is no going back from the all-embracing legislation that was enacted in 1957. We have to realise that our future will be more perilous.
I earnestly hope that the Minister of State will convince the Home Secretary of the strength of public feeling and ask him to realise that something must be done, perhaps in consultation with the Parole Board. [Interruption.] Did someone say I had changed my mind? Politics, as a science, is an ever-rolling ball. We cannot go back to sixteenth century arguments. Time moves on, and we have to take cognisance of legislation and its effect upon the public. We cannot go back to the days before we legislated to abolish the death penalty. I said that 12 months ago. We must recognise that there are forces that compel any politician to rethink his position. We could continue this debate indefinitely, bringing up the same old arguments, but some reassurance must be given to the public. The assurance that I find necessary is the one that I have stated.
5.15. p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) referred to political realism, and I am sure that that strikes us all as being a most important consideration. I sometimes think that the general public have a greater feeling for political realism than do some right hon. and hon. Members. All we ask tonight is that the State should take back to itself the power of the penalty of death. Over the last few months we have seen a growth of terrorism throughout the world and inside our own society.
Some Labour Members have expatiated on the problem of the jury system in Ireland. The problem is that because of terrorism the jury is subject to sentence of death by the IRA. The public are baffled by statements that have been made by leading politicians from both sides of the House. They are baffled by bishops who pontificate while at the same time supporting terrorist movements through organisations such as the World Council of Churches. They are baffled by being told that they do not know as well as we do. Perhaps some right hon. and hon. Members have been baffled by the document which sets out 33 ways in which Members of Parliament can protect themselves, one of which is as follows:
"Be sensitive to aspects of your public or business activities which may identify you with issues likely to evoke violent dissent."
I am told that that document comes from the police. That is why we must consider this subject within the simple term that power to award the penalty of death should be restored to the State.
Reference has been made to security aspects. The views of senior policemen, generals and other experts have been quoted. Every good general and every good policeman wishes to engage in a limited battle in which he is certain to be the victor. This decision is one not for the expert police or military adviser but for the House of Commons. It is essentially a political decision.
We must apply our minds to the authority of the State and the deterrent power of the penalty of death. The powers of the State have been widened by a series of Governments, until the Government now control 90 per cent. of some people's lives and 60 per cent. of
690
the economy. Never before has the power of the State been greater and never has the authority of the State been less. That is the fundamental fact which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must face.
Following the success of political terrorism, we are threatened by a growth of violence that manifests itself in ordinary criminality, and the random hostage is becoming as much a part of the burglary kit as a jemmy or cosh. We are witnessing the decline in the authority of the State, and at this point, for its arrest, it is essential for the State to have available the supreme penalty of death.
The question of the deterrent can be argued in many ways and in many directions. Anyone who examines his conscience must realise, as Dr. Johnson said, that nothing concentrates a man's mind more than the thought of being hanged.
I have had some experience both as one combating terrorism and one engaged in activities with so-called terrorists. Those persons were frightened not by the prison camp but by the fear of being shot out of hand.
I believe, therefore, that we should, as a House, address ourselves to these matters in the spirit of the great lawyer, Lord Denning, that such a penalty is not simply a deterrent but the statement of the total abhorrence of a community against an outrageous crime.
5.21 p.m.
Mrs. Helene Hayman: The House tonight is discussing matters of life and death, not only for convicted murderers but for ordinary citizens in this country. The lives and deaths of ordinary citizens matter infinitely more than the lives and deaths of convicted murderers. It is not an occasion for any of us to display our consciences or our principles in this Chamber. The House and the public demand our rational judgment as to what will best safeguard our citizens.
It is because we view the subject in that way that many of us in this House who have an abhorrence of detention without trial, an abhorrence of extending police powers in ways that in any other sense we would regard as being against civil liberties, an abhorrence of exclusion orders and many of the other things we have had to put up with in the wake of

691
terrorism, have supported those measures, despite our normal principles. We have done so because we thought that they would be effective in the fight against terrorism.
If I believed that supporting this motion and legislation to bring back the death penalty would really have made it less likely that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) would be subject to the attempt made on him—from which his neighbour died—or that young people in pubs in Birmingham would die while having an evening drink, or that people eating out in London would be subject to death and maiming, I, too, might put to one side my principles as an abolitionist and support the hon. Gentleman's motion.
I do not believe that that is the case and, not believing that to be the case, I think it would be wrong for any hon. Member to support a measure which, in my view, because of the arguments that I hope to put forward, would only increase the violence and decrease the chances of a peaceful settlement of the problems of Northern Ireland, which far pre-date the time when terrorism crossed the channel to enter this country.
None of us can ignore the Irish dimension to this problem. None of us can step aside from a consideration of the way it would be judged across the Irish Sea if we, in this House, chose to protect by the death penalty those, here, who are in danger from terrorism, when we are not able to protect people in Northern Ireland who are in far greater danger than any of us. We cannot dodge that issue, and we cannot countenance sentencing to death men and women who have not had the benefit of trial by jury.
When he moved the motion, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that it was not possible to argue both that terrorists were bent on self-destruction, with "kamikaze" attitudes, and that they would use women, children, or other people less likely to be subject to the death penalty, in their operations. I am afraid that that is not so, because a vast spectrum of people of different temperaments, from the psychopath to the weak, to the romantic, to the child, is involved in the whole range of IRA activities.
692
We owe it to the House and the country to argue in a practical way—not in terms of theories or principles—what would happen if we reintroduced the death penalty.
It cannot seriously be argued that people who turn their homes into bomb factories, people who manufacture letter bombs, people who drive carloads of explosives and have seen their colleagues blown to death when carrying similar explosives, people who go into the West End of London to shoot, knowing that the police are armed to shoot back against them, and who run these risks of death in their activities, would actually be deterred by the introduction of another risk—death by the noose—at the end of a long-drawn-out trial.
Those people will always be there as the fodder for terrorist activities. As for the others—the ones who, we are told, have some cowardice in their souls, and are willing to manipulate and to exploit—unfortunately, the streets of Belfast and Londonderry produce too many unhappy, disturbed children who are too easily turned into the couriers and perpetrators of terrorist crimes.
We cannot ignore the necessity of following through the logic of what has been said in the argument for bringing back the death penalty. If we did so, I believe that it would actually harm the cause of protecting public safety in this country and bringing peace to Northern Ireland. It would make it more difficult for the security forces and the police to get information. It would make it more difficult to get convictions.
This is not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, because juries have doubts; it is because juries have a revulsion against sentencing to death the people who are before them. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may jeer, but they came very loudly to the defence of those who said that there should not be a narrow definition of the terrorist who would be subject to the death penalty, and that it should apply to everyone involved in the terrorist activity. I see that hon. Members are nodding in agreement with me.
That word "everyone" includes the 19-year-old who got the car on the way. It includes the mother of the terrorist who took him in on the night after the incident knowing what he had done. When people of this kind are put on trial,

693
however certain the jury may be they will not convict, knowing that the result will be the death of these people.
In those circumstances, if we introduce the death penalty we are making more difficult and not less difficult the jobs of the people in the front line, who have the primary responsibility for security.
Mr. John Gorst: As someone with absolutely no idea how he will vote until he has heard all the arguments, may I put it to the hon. Lady that the argument she is using about juries is very difficult to accept? If about 80 per cent. of the population wish to reintroduce hanging or capital punishment, how is it that 100 per cent. of juries will find it very difficult—since they are ordinary men and women—to convict?
Mrs. Hayman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. I think that we are talking now about the heat of the moment. When people reply to the question, "Do you want the introduction of the death penalty?"—a theoretical question—after an outrage and not knowing who committed the outrage but knowing who has died, they will say, Yes, of course; those bastards have no right to live. They should die." That is a very different situation. Six months later, when the court case has finally come to its end, people are faced not with the victim, who all too often is forgotten, but with the person who did the act. They are faced with the person who has a family.
Let us not delude ourselves. These persons will have families. They will have wives, children and aged persons who will weep for them. Newpapers will set out the story of deprivation and harm that has ended up with the person in the dock, with the possibility of the gallows. Then the public—us; human beings—change their minds. We change our minds from the theoretical matter of saying, "Punish these anonymous people," to saying, "How can I take the responsibility of sentencing that man, or that woman, to death next week?"
That is why it would be so dangerous to assume that we must take public opinion now, on the theoretical question, as the only answer. I think that we should find it a hard taskmaster when it actually came to the trials that would be involved.
694
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said that we were allowing the terrorists to dictate our law and order and that if we did not support the motion the terrorists would be dictating to us. I think that he was quite wrong. They will be dictating to us if we vote for the motion tonight. They will be making us say, "We have only one answer to your violence, and it is our violence." They will be making us adopt the politics of despair.
There are many who have argued not on the practical case, which is the case upon which this House should judge the issue tonight, but on the very real feelings held by millions of people in this country that, as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, these people have forfeited their right to live. There are not many of us who would waste our breath in defending the rights of these murderers. But the sad thing is that if we voted to return to capital punishment we should be regarding the rights of those people—justice, if one cares to call it that; just deserts for murderers—as more important than the safety of individual citizens of this country and the hope of peace in Northern Ireland. That would be the most tragic irony of all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I remind hon. Members that this short debate must finish by 7 o'clock. There are still about 12 hon. Members who wish to take part. I hope that they will apportion their time in a reasonable fashion.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Robert Carr: My only motivation in approaching this subject is a desire to win the war against terrorism and to protect the British public and enable them once again to live under the Queen's peace. When we ask ourselves about this question, we find that it is inevitably a difficult one. It is a question about which people naturally have very strong feelings. I certainly do. But what we owe the country is a deep judgment, not an emotional response, to show how we believe that the war against terrorism can be won.
As one of those who, having been Home Secretary, has had to come face to face with this responsibility in an

695
inescapable way, I thought that it might be useful to explain why, motivated as I am, I came to the judgment against the use of capital punishment for terrorist murder—a judgment that I still hold today, in spite of the increase in terrorism to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred.
My starting point is the consideration that when we are dealing with terrorist killings we are dealing with considerations wholly different from those applying to ordinary murder and ordinary criminal violence. This difference is one of kind and not simply of degree. Therefore, I say straight away that I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that in moral terms the purveyors of death by terrorism have forfeited their right to live.
But that, I believe, is not the question that we actually have to answer. The question upon which we have to judge is whether to exact that forfeit would put the brake on terrorism or whether it would not. In my judgment it would not, and I should like to try to explain why.
I think that our judgment has to start from the fact that, as I have said, we are not dealing with the individual criminal or gangs of criminals in the ordinary sense; we are fighting a war against an enemy with a significant degree of cohesion, organisation and collective purpose. Our strategy must be equally coherent and organised, in order first to contain and then ultimately to destroy the capacity and the strength of the terrorists in both numbers and resources. In order to succeed in this, our policies must succeed in achieving a number of different objectives simultaneously. We have to integrate our judgment about the extent to which the question of capital punishment would affect not just one factor but a whole number of factors.
I should like to test the effect of capital punishment on a number of what I believe are essential objectives. First, there is the obvious one of deterrence, about which we have heard a good deal. I would not wish to dispute the fact that capital punishment presumably must deter some people. I do not know how we measure how many. But that does
696
not mean to say that its overall result is one of deterrence, because we must remember that we are dealing not principally with the ordinary criminal thug; we are dealing, presumably, to a large extent with an unusually high proportion of people who are fanatics—people who, however perverted they may be in their thinking and feelings, see themselves as fighting for a cause that is higher than themselves, and people who are living in a state of mind of dangerous exultation, in which they hold even their own lives at a relatively low price. They are high on the drugs of fanaticism.
I believe that when we look at the history of terrorism in Ireland in the past, in Palestine as it was, in Cyprus and, perhaps, more recently in Spain, we find that there really is no evidence that the overall result of the threat of capital punishment is effectively to deter terrorists.
There is, in addition, a further aspect of the deterrent consideration which is in our minds today when we think of the siege in Balcombe Street. Would not Mr. and Mrs. Matthews, and the police dealing with the incident, be in even greater danger of their lives today had the gunmen locking them in and locking themselves in together with them already been subject to capital punishment for things they may have done prior to taking that step?
Mr. Michael Mates: My right hon. Friend may make that point, but we do not know the circumstances that exist in the room, and therefore they might argue equally powerfully the other way. Let us suppose that one of the four terrorists had nothing to lose but the other three had not yet committed offences for which the penalty would be death. What would the pressures be? Would not the deterrent of certain capture and execution make a powerful argument for the three to go against the other? We are hypothesising, but it is dangerous to take hypothetical cases and to try to make facts out of them.
Mr. Carr: This is not a matter to which one can apply a rule and which can be measured precisely. This is more a matter of judgment. I believe that if we spoke to most of the policemen, of all ranks, involved in that operation the majority

697
judgment would fall heavily on the side which I have just put forward. I believe that the greatest deterrent controlling the gunmen in Balcombe Street is the belief, which I trust they have, that if they try to shoot their way out, shooting the hostages in the process, they themselves are in near certainty of being shot by the forces of law and order. I do not agree with those who suggest that the ordinary citizen should keep a gun in his pocket or in the back room of his house. But let us face it: there is a big difference between judicial capital punishment and the people's police force properly keeping law and order, admitting that that does involve in rare circumstances the need for officers to carry and, yes, even to use guns.
We must next consider the effect of capital punishment on the recruitment of new active terrorists. Here again we have to form a judgment. If we were thinking only in terms of the normal criminal thug, I should be inclined to take the view that capital punishment might reduce recruitment. However, that is not the case. Looking at the evidence from Ireland in the past, from Palestine, Cyprus and Spain, there is at least an indication which should be taken seriously—that the highly political types who are the most dangerous in this area and who tend to be high on fanaticism are drawn into recruitment when executions take place.
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Carr: It is giving way, more than anything else, which makes my speeches longer. I should like to do so but I am afraid I cannot.
We must also remember that the strength of the terrorists against whom we are fighting depends on money and supplies as well as on people. We must think about where the money and supplies come from. We believe that most of them come from abroad. What would be the effect of a series of executions on the sort of people who are supplying this money and material from abroad? What would be the effect, for example, of the execution of a young person, and above all of a young woman, however much she had culpably committed a terrorist murder, on that section of the Irish descendant population of the United States who, alas, one fears is one of the main sources at least of monetary aid to the IRA?
698
We must consider the effect of the death penalty on the degree of co-operation which the police would get from individuals who provided information which led to detection and arrest of terrorists. We must consider the effect on those who give cover and safe haven to the terrorists, on those called to give not only information to the police but evidence later in court, and on those who serve on juries. Those people would be affected partly by sympathy, or lack of sympathy, for the terrorists' cause, and partly—we must not underestimate this—by the degree of intimidation to which they are subjected. No one can have any real doubt that capital punishment and trials with execution at the end of them might alienate some people's sympathy and certainly would be in danger of increasing the degree of intimidation on the type of people I have mentioned. We must also consider the effect on the co-operation from the Government and the other authorities in the Republic of Eire.
Finally, we must consider the extent to which the introduction of the death penalty would or would not assist us in driving the vital wedge between the terrorists and the Irish population, both north and south of the border.
I am not trying to prove that any one of these considerations is definite or decisive in its effect. However, I wish to repeat my original point. In our strategy for fighting the war against terrorism, we must make a judgment and an assessment of the overall effect of all the factors I have mentioned and, no doubt, others I have not mentioned. We must not consider only one of them.
It was when I took all those factors into account when I was Home Secretary that I was in no doubt that my integrated judgment had to be that the introduction of the death penalty was more likely to hinder than to help us in the war against terrorism. I do not think it is irrelevant, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) also said, for me to point out that in my day at the Home Office my view was also the considered view of the majority of the senior Army officers in Ireland and of the majority of senior police officers in both Ireland and this country. Although that is not decisive, it is surely something of which the House must take serious account. I ask the

699
Home Secretary whether that is still the strong majority opinion of those in charge of the battle against terrorists.
The judgment I make is a hard-headed and not a sentimental one. I should not wish to make a sentimental judgment and appeal to this country to support it.
My final and most important point is the need to carry public opinion with us. The Government and this House must not underestimate the deeply-felt need by the great majority of British people to be convinced that we are fighting this battle against the terrorists in the strongest and most effective manner open to us.
Mr. Gorst rose ߞ
Mr. Carr: I shall not give way. The Government's policy must not appear feeble. It must appear strong. We should not be surprised that the public as a whole turn so strongly towards capital punishment. At present they feel that the battle is not being won. They have doubts about the effective will of the Government to prosecute. I am not saying that they are justified, but that is what they feel. It is up to the Government to ensure that the public take a different view.
To the great majority of people capital punishment is the one obvious weapon to hand which has not been used. If we decide, as I hope we shall, that it would be a mistake to use capital punishment and that it would not help to win the war against terrorism, a much greater and more continuous effort must be made by Ministers and all the rest of us as well to convince the public why we take that view. We must also convince people that other policies are likely to be effective.
For that purpose I want to put five short requests to the Home Secretary. First, and here I take the point of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that life imprisonment for terrorist murderers means what it says? Secondly, will he restate categorically the assurance that the present Government will never do a political deal which involves any amnesty for terrorist murderers? Thirdly, will he assure us that the Government will offer large financial rewards for information leading to the
700
detection of terrorists? I agree that the setting of a fixed public tariff might not be sensible, but it must be widely known that the rewards will vary according to the quality of the intelligence obtained and that they will not be limited by any financial ceiling. It must be known that they will be as large as may be needed to get the information which we require.
Fourthly, will the Home Secretary pledge the Government's readiness to introduce further special powers if the police make a case for them? The most obvious candidate is, of course, stricter controls over travel between Britain and both the North and the South of Ireland. When I was Home Secretary the police were of the opinion that that would be more of a hindrance than a help to them. Is that still their view? If so, well and good. If not, or if their view should change in future, will the Home Secretary pledge this House without delay to bringing in those extra powers?
Finally, will the Home Secretary pledge to this House and the country that no resources will be spared which would assist in winning this battle against terrorism? We know that the economic crisis demands cuts in Government expenditure and an incomes policy, which we support. But the battle against terrorism demands the same absolute priority as a traditional type of war. It is indeed a special case of a unique kind. Although different in kind and, thank goodness, much smaller in scale, the terrorists are waging a war against our society and freedom just as fundamental as Nazi Germany 35 years ago. Our commitment to win this war must be just as complete now as it was then. That is what the country wants to know. If we can convince the country that that is the extent of our commitment, people will follow the lead that we give them. If we do not give that lead, people will not follow us.
It is right that this matter should be discussed today, and I believe it is right that we should be free to discuss it at frequent intervals.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: I regret that I have to comment upon the questions which have been put to the Home Secretary by the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) by saying that, although

701
affirmative replies could be given to all of them, those replies, if they were given us, would be in good faith affirmatively, but would be lacking in authenticity In approaching this problem it is idle to pretend that simple, direct solutions exist for resolving it.
The suggestion has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that life imprisonment must mean life imprisonment and that that is the answer. The truth is that, except for a small minority of people whose continued dangerousness is obvious after many years of imprisonment, we cannot pledge that people will remain all their lives in prison. That pledge just cannot be given.
The distinguished psychiatrist who is assisting the police in the Balcombe Street incident and who assisted them in the Spaghetti House incident, with myself, Sir Leon Radzinowicz and the Bishop of Exeter, was engaged for some years on the task of examining the position of people who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and about whom decisions had to be made on how they would live there for ever. One conclusion in the resulting report presented by the Home Office Advisory Committee is that it is impossible for a society which has democratic values to continue to contain men who know that no other punishment can be meted out to them if they rebel and that no rewards can be given if they co-operate.
If peace is restored to troubled Ireland, as we all hope, there will inevitably be a demand for the release of convicted terrorists. Indeed, many hon. Gentlemen opposite who support capital punishment were signatories to a motion demanding or requiring that one of the worst gangsters in our lifetime should be released from Spandau Prison. Those of us who still carry the memory of comrades who lost their lives, in whatever Service we served, and those who, like myself, belong to a people who lost millions in the holocaust, realise that there comes a time in a civilised world when we recoil from continued imprisonment, even of Hess whose crimes and enormities cannot be sufficiently catalogued. Therefore, it is unwise to believe that life means life. That cannot be the response offered to the problem.
I do not want to catalogue all that has been said with far greater fluency,
702
and the authority of a former Home Secretary, on the lack of a deterrent or, indeed, the dangers if we reintroduce hanging. People have said that it may deter some. As an abolitionist I accept that it may deter some, but, as someone who, perhaps too often, as a solicitor was in a position to defend people when the rope existed and State strangulation was the order of the day, I was struck by the fact that one had no thanks—on the contrary—from those whom one believed one should be able to persuade, to put forward a defence which could save them from the rope.
It is a mistake to believe that murderers are rational people with the responses that we may have. In fact, they are irrational people. It is an undoubted fact that the rope may deter some, but it attracts the disturbed. Who can dispute that death is an attraction for many murderers? Every year more than a third of those who commit murder actually commit suicide long before they are arrested. We are clearly taking a risk if we put that type of psychology against the background of Irish culture where martyrdom for noble causes can be so perverted that it can be attributed to evil men. We may actually incite the activating of murder rather than the containing of it.
I do not want to adumbrate all the obvious arguments relating to kidnapping and hostages. They have already been eloquently put forward.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) referred to what happened about the events in Spain and the fact that there the response to the death penalty was an escalation of violence. Spain has not learned any lesson from that experience, but Israel has. I do not think that this country is less able to maintain civilised values than Israel, which has repudiated any idea of responding to Arab terrorism by hanging. The people of Israel, in the face of grave provocation, have maintained their democratic values. I do not believe that this country would do less.
It is odd that although we have all been speaking on the pros and cons of capital punishment in particular circumstances we have avoided dealing with the aetiology, the roots of the present bout of terrorism which afflicts us. Where does it come from? It is simple to talk of life

703
imprisonment. It is dramatic to respond by saying that hanging is the answer. But shall we turn our eyes away from those who are responsible for exacerbating the conditions in which the terrorists breed?
I went to Northern Ireland earlier this year and met some of the Provisional leaders. I found them to be largely men of my own generation, tired, depleted and exhausted, obviously feeling the effect of being contained by a sophisticated Army which had developed its techniques of urban guerrilla warfare. It was my judgment, after I had spoken to them for a considerable time, that they were losing the battle, and that they could continue it only if through provocation they could be augmented by young men from the lost generation of Belfast, those brought up in the appalling conditions to which one of my hon. Friends referred, and when I talked to the leadership of the para-military organisation, the UDF, I was also struck by the fact that they recoiled, as has since been clearly shown, from all the activities of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Members who support his view.
There have been two Gallup polls. There have been references in this debate to the poll which found that the public wanted the reintroduction of hanging, but there has so far been no reference to the other response of public opinion, when it said categorically that it wanted the Army to get out of Northern Ireland. That response must also be considered.
The country is tired of our importing violence into this country, tired of our giving out large sums at a time when all our constituents are enduring economic travail. That situation is in no small measure occurring as a result of the provocative stance taken by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and all his colleagues, who, refusing to take the more constructive view of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), expect this country to coarsen its values by introducing capital punishment precisely because they are inciting the Northern Irish community to refuse to participate in power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, when I hear on all sides, and certainly from those hon. Members, that if we introduce capital punishment
704
we must stretch it to include all those who contribute in the slightest degree to terrorism, I believe that if that attitude were adopted there would be hon. Members and many people in the country, weary of the situation in Northern Ireland, who would say that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should be placed in the dock.
Neither hanging nor life imprisonment is the answer. The answer lies in Northern Ireland, in being able completely to isolate the group in Northern Ireland responsible for the terrorism, and to make arid the soil from which they spring. A terrible responsibility lies on those hon. Members who could give leadership but who are sabotaging all the efforts to bring the two communities together.
Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for hon. Members in favour of the motion to be called? Apart from the mover, only one such hon. Member has been called so far.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is wrong. However, I take note.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The House must face reality. Either we have the death penalty for all murders or do we do not have the death penalty at all. That is the real issue before the House. Everyone with any experience of the obvious legal difficulties of trying to distinguish between one class of murder and another knows that it would be impossible in practice to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Hooson: I shall not give way at the very beginning of my speech.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on the manner in which he made his speech, but I disagree with him profoundly. He suggested that we should not allow law-breakers to make our law. He is in great danger of doing that very thing, of allowing a bunch of terrorists to determine for us what our law should be. He completely failed to make a case for the special efficacy of hanging, or the death penalty however carried out, to deal with terrorists.

705
I agree with many of the points against the motion made in the debate, and I do not want to reiterate them. I want to deal with the matter from the point of view of a practising lawyer who has probably prosecuted and defended at least as many murderers as any other hon. Member in this House. I agree with the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Can) that the death penalty is a deterrent to some people. I have always believed that, although I have also always believed in the abolition of the death penalty. It is a deterrent to some, but is not generally a deterrent; its overall effect is not to deter.
In the year 1800 there were more than 200 offences in this country for which death was the penalty. It was removed by a process of gradual elimination. Many of the arguments put forward today for the introduction of the death penalty as a particularly efficacious way of dealing with terrorism have been used many times before in connection with other offences and the removal of the death penalty. By 1957 the death penalty had virtually disappeared in our country.
Taking the view that I do, however, I would vote for the return of the death penalty if I thought that it would be particularly efficacious for dealing with terrorism, if I thought that it would reduce terrorism or make it easier for the community to deal with terrorists. But I do not think that it would. My reading of the situation is that the result would be exactly the opposite—that the introduction of the death penalty at this stage would make it virtually impossible politically to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Burton is trying to distinguish between acts of terrorism and other acts—acts of murder, for example. If someone shoots a bank clerk in the pursuit of robbing the bank, with the motive of simply robbing it, presumably that is not to be a capital offence. But if someone robs a bank for a political motive, to obtain the money to finance his political organisation, which has been done many times in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Fairbairn: Treason.
Mr. Hooson: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is not treason. Presumably that is to be a capital
706
murder, if the hon. Member for Burton's view is accepted.
Let us consider the situation in practice. There is a trial of three men charged with a bank robbery in which a bank clerk is killed. The men have Irish accents. Because of the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism, they all deny that they had a political motivation. The prosecution produces evidence that one of the men was a member of the IRA three years ago. He denies that he continued as a member thereafter. The other two men, including the man who shot the bank clerk, deny that they are members of the IRA, and there is no evidence of it. There would be grave suspicion in the case. What would the jury do?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Its duty.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have short speeches so that both sides of the argument can be put.
Mr. Hooson: I believe that I was called a few minutes after six o'clock. I have been speaking for only seven minutes.
In the example that I have given, the situation for the judge and jury would be almost impossible. How is it possible for a jury to distinguish between one motive and another? The man with the greater culpability, although all may be equally guilty in law, may say "I shot him in cold blood. I had a financial motive. I did it simply to rob a bank." He would not face the death penalty. It might be suggested that the other man had some political motivation, or there might be some evidence to that effect.
Such a situation would bring our law into disrepute. One result could be far fewer convictions. Apart from that, there is the time factor in an important case. The first step is the apprehension and arrest of the alleged murderers. There is then the delay between arrest and cornmittal and then trial.
Anyone who has been involved in a trial which carries the death penalty will know that a completely different atmosphere prevails. The interest of the Press and the public is totally different. That is illustrated by the fact that we get to know and remember as members of the public the names of the accused. Which hon. Members remember the names of

707
the people who were convicted for the terrible bomb outrage in Birmingham? I do not think there is one hon. Member who can get to his feet to tell me their names, yet they were convicted of one of the most terrible crimes in the past two years. If there had been a death penalty, the House would have known the names of the accused, as would the public.
Considerable time would elapse between trial and appeal. If there were to be a new offence involving political motivation it is very likely that a case would go to the House of Lords to determine whether the political motivation had been properly proved. We can easily imagine the propaganda opportunity that the whole process would provide. Terrorists are concerned about propaganda and they would exploit the situation to the full. They would ensure that they gained maximum propaganda capital from one of their members being put on trial. They would utilise every opportunity.
If the motion were to be carried and if we were to change the law, we would be doing the greatest possible damage to ourselves in the war against terrorists. I come to this view—it is a matter of judgment—as someone who has practised at the Bar for many years. I am reinforced in my view because I know that most of the senior members of Scotland Yard, many of whom believe in the death penalty for murder, are against introducing it specifically for terrorism. They believe that it would make it much more difficult for them to get their information, and I am told that information is coming along fairly well at the moment. The supply of information is very much better now than it was a year or two ago. The Army officers in command in Northern Ireland are also against the death penalty for terrorism.
What is the House to do? Where is the example that can be given by those who support the motion of the special efficacy of the death penalty against terrorism? Was it in Israel in 1947? Was it in Cyprus or Aden? Was it in Spain? Five men were shot in Spain and nine policemen were murdered in the fortnight that followed. The case for the special efficacy of the death penalty in dealing with terrorism is not made out. I would say that every rational
708
argument is against it. That is why the House should be against it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). He has promised to be very short.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: This subject is far too serious to approach with obscurantist emotionalism, the effect of which is to render some hon. Members impervious to the horrors of terrorism. However much we may dislike having to make a choice tonight, it is clear that a decision must now be taken on capital punishment. I have considered the alternatives to capital punishment and I am not impressed by the argument for imprisonment or variations on that theme, including periodical corporal punishment.
To develop that point would be to stray outside the terms of reference for the debate, but it appears to me to be quite wrong that a terrorist's sentence should be determined either by his later conduct or by political expediency. It is the nature of the crime which should determine the intensity of the sentence.
I shall quickly dispose of the dangerous concept which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), which provides encouragement for terrorists. The concept is that, if the objective which motivates terrorists has some kind of credibility, there is some justification for the death and destruction which they cause. That is a ludicrous concept and a disgrace to a Chamber of this nature.
Mr. Abse rose—
Mr. Bradford: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's persistence is exceeded only by his ignorance of the Northern Ireland situation. There has been more IRA activity in the period of the power-sharing Executive than at any other time during the Northern Ireland crisis.
Terrorism must not be dispassionately diagnosed it must be smashed. In other words, death and destruction by individuals or groups is wrong even though that which gives rise to such immoral action may also be questionable.

709
What punishment should apply to the cancerous evil of terrorism? Let us not substitute words like "reform" or "rehabilitation" for "punishment". Let us accept that punishment is a necessary element in society. In the face of devastating acts of murder, the State has no business to fritter away time on the irrelevancy of possible reform and assistance to that end. The State cannot guarantee the reform of murderers. Therefore, it is negating its responsibility to society. When punishment ceases to be the paramount consideration, the result is that standards are conceded and the value placed upon human personality is reduced.
We must recognise evil for what it is and not rationalise it so as to provide an opportunity for philanthropic orgies. We must apply a punishment which is commensurate with the crime. Although we have heard idealists, romantics and the weak-willed put forward their point of view, everyone knows that murder is wrong. People know the difference between right and wrong.
The media have an important rôle in demonstrating the horror of the kind of excesses which are shared as much by those who suffer at the hands of terrorists as by those who display emotive feelings during the trials of terrorists.
There are those who contend that the State has the right to kill in the defence of ordinary citizens and in the defence of the State, and that the way round the problem of reintroducing capital punishment is to regard terrorists as enemies who are at war with us and to insist that the rules of war shall prevail. I do not accept that that is the best method of dealing with terrorism.
The police in this country do not carry arms. How can they encounter terrorists? In Northern Ireland the terrorists are encountered directly by the Army, and we know that that does not in any way reduce the bombings. Secondly, prisoners of war have rights after capture. I maintain that terrorists, apart from a statutory trial, should have no rights.
The issue is not whether capital punishment is a deterrent. The fact that both sides resort to statistics to prove their point means that the exercise is futile because it is inconclusive. The one thing that is certain is that capital punishment
710
deters the terrorist, who is removed from society by capital punishment.
When capital punishment is applied, there is commensurate punishment with the crime and at least one terrorist has been deterred. It does the Northern Ireland people a grave injustice to suggest that the murder of educationally subnormal boys and girls and the murder of a two-year-old girl will result in a kind of secular canonisation of IRA terrorists. That is not true.
I conclude by saying that we must all be realistic. Hostages will be taken, counter-murders will occur, but unfortunately hostage and murder are ironies of our fate. One thing is clear: terrorism will win if we compromise our attitude in respect of the punishment applied. For these reasons, I shall support those who wish to reintroduce capital punishment.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: It is nearly 11 years to the day since I stood where I now stand and made my maiden speech in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. A year ago today, for the first time in my life, I voted for the restoration of capital punishment in this area of crime. I did so because, having considered the escalation of terrorism that we saw in that period, I came to the conclusion and judgment that we were right to bring back capital punishment for terrorist activities. I only regret that in giving consideration to those problems, I eventually came down on the opposite side of the argument to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) of whose Home Office team I was glad to be a member in the Conservative Government.
Let me briefly explain the reasons that brought me to this conclusion. I believe that acts of terrorism consisting of wanton devastation of property and life comprise one of the major threats faced by Western civilisation today. I was fortunate to be brought up in a generation that avoided the problems of a world war. Instead, we have faced problems of the urban guerrilla who, by the bomb and by the gun, takes the lives of innocent citizens who probably have no part in the political motivation that caused the action. I believe that we, as a Parliament, have a duty, so far as possible, to protect the people of this country against such attacks.

711
Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot, through the security forces, provide the necessary degree of protection from such attacks. Therefore, I believe that we must take every means we can to discourage urban terrorists from operating within these shores. In a situation in which our whole society is under attack, I think that we are wrong in advance to remove the power to use any sanction.
Secondly, I believe that if there is an area in which the death penalty must surely be a deterrent, it is in that area in which people choose to set out to kill, having taken a deliberate calculation. Of course, one will not deter the fanatic, but there are some cases in which the fear of the penalty will deter the weakest link in the chain, and as a result the whole chain will collapse. The tremendous growth in terrorist activity in the last two or three years hardly suggests that we are being effective in our deterrents against these attacks. At least, we have a duty to test whether the threat of the death penalty would have the deterrent effect that its champions have always claimed.
I am concerned, and always have been, by the argument about the danger of increasing the amount of hostage-taking and reprisals as a result of the introduction of capital punishment. The House would be foolish to underestimate the strength of that argument. I realise that the fear of hostage-taking will continue to exist so long as we keep people in long-term captivity. That is a major calculation in coming to a conclusion on this matter. But we must distinguish between the danger of short-term reprisals and the effect of a long-term deterrent. At the moment, we appear to be living in an escalating situation of greater and greater terrorist activity. I am not sure that the danger of short-term reprisals outweighs the deterrent effect of action against the terrorist, whose activities may affect the future of this country.
I agree with the Home Secretary that this is a matter of judgment from which emotions should be removed. Having listened to the debate, I cannot pretend that I have found mine an easy course to take. In the end I am persuaded by 'the strength of public opinion outside the House. I believe that the polls are right.
712
I do not believe that public opinion is conclusive, but we should never disregard it. The public have now heard sufficient of the issues and arguments to be aware of the danger of escalation, yet, despite that danger, they are calling loudly and clearly for this House, in their name, to take that action. It is for those reasons, despite my previous views, that I shall vote for the motion.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Nine years ago, three unarmed policemen were shot to death on a sunny morning in a street in Shepherds Bush. Many hon. Members will remember that incident because it produced a national shock. The Prime Minister made a statement to the House, and the Queen attended a memorial service in Westminster. The whole nation mourned the death of those three unarmed policemen shot down in pursuit of their duty.
The situation today is very different. It is bad enough that we are beset by terror, but there is something worse. We are getting used to killings, murder is becoming commonplace and terror is becoming a normal activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) gave a grisly catalogue of bombings. I speak only for the police. I speak of Stephen Tibble, a young constable just out of training school, who was shot dead in Chelsea when trying to stop an armed robber. I speak also of Sergeant Brian Dawson, shot and left for dying in a Leicester street; Constable John Scolfield, shot dead while making an inquiry of a driver in Caterham; Superintendent Richardson, shot dead while chasing a bank robber in Blackpool; Constable Dennis Smith, shot dead in a panda car; Police Constable Guthrie, shot dead at the age of 19 when he caught a shopbreaker in the act; Detective Constable Keith Coward, shot nine times by two murderers when he stopped their car in the Thames Valley. One of his murderers at the trial said of Keith Coward "He was the bravest bastard I have ever seen".
In all these and in other ways the police are in the front line. That is why the Police Federation, with which I declare a connection, has a special claim to be heard in this debate. The

713
police force has a claim on Parliament for protection, because the police protect us in this place. Policemen also have a right to our protection because their lives are at risk and because they come into closer contact with murderers and terrorists than does any other section of the community. Because of their experience and judgment they have the right to be considered with the utmost seriousness.
The Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation, representing 105,000 policemen up to and including the rank of chief inspector, has carefully considered this question. Its members have asked me to inform the House that the considered view of the men and women who make up the police service is that capital punishment would assist the police in carrying out their duties.
The Home Secretary thinks otherwise. I honour him. Some chief officers also think otherwise. Speaking, however, for the overwhelming majority of policemen in this country—be they the CID, the Special Branch, the Special Patrol Group or the uniformed branch—the Federation is unanimous. Its members regard abolition as a mistake. They believe, and they think they can prove, that it has exposed many more policemen to danger and to death than would have been the case if the penalty of capital punishment had remained. Above all, they are convinced that the task of resisting violent crime, of combating terror and protecting the lives of their fellow citizens, including those of the police, would be materially less dangerous and less onerous if the capital sentence were now to be restored.
I have only two minutes in which to speak before the Home Secretary replies to the debate. I turn to the question of whether the terrorist would be deterred. In my view and that of the Police Federation, acts of political terror are carried out by three types of men. At one extreme are the fanatics, the men who kill for their beliefs. At the other end of the spectrum are the hired guns, the men who kill for pay. Most other terrorist killers are men and women of more limited intelligence, murderers of mixed motive who kill out of a witch's brew of idealism, bravado, hatred, thrills obedience to their leaders and fear of themselves being killed by their fanatical comrades.
714
Among those three groups of killers the argument of deterrence means nothing to the fanatic. I fairly concede that the death penalty would not stop him. However, the death penalty can stop, and in the view of police it would stop, a significant proportion of the other two groups. The hired gun becomes more expensive and much harder to recruit once his own life is at risk, because he is above all a calculator of the odds. The same goes for the other group of killers, the NCOs of terror. Like the hired gun, this kind of man can be induced by fear of execution to hesitate, pause and feel frightened before he risks his own life.
I conclude by putting three short questions to the House. First, which hon. Member, whatever his conscience may tell him, can say with enough certainty to take the responsibility of possibly sending others to their death that in this particular matter he is wiser and more experienced that the British police?
Secondly, which hon. Member can say with enough moral authority to be willing to risk the life of the policemen who protect us that not one professional gangster who sets out to commit a crime would be deterred by the fear of hanging from taking a firearm with him?
Finally, which hon. Member, however convinced he may be that the death penalty might lead to the taking of hostages and reprisals—as also does life imprisonment—is so certain as to overrule the views of the police that not one hired assassin, not one cowardly bomber and not one confused youngster would be cut off from an act of terror by the knowledge that he might suffer the same fate as he now vicariously contemplates visiting upon others? We cannot stop terror or murder by hanging, but we can reduce the numbers of those engaged in committing these crimes.
6.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The House has listened with great seriousness and interest to a number of contributions. I shall comment later on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I also listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). In a way,

715
his premises and method of thought on this matter are close to mine, but it so happens that we come to firmly different conclusions. However, I shall endeavour to deal with some of his arguments as well as with other points that were raised.
As the House will be aware, by a strange coincidence this debate falls debate and vote on this subject. This, upon the exact anniversary of last year's perhaps, makes it peculiarly appropriate for anyone, like myself, who has had to speak on both occasions, to look back and see to what extent the arguments that he then used have stood up, and to consider also, with as unprejudiced a mind as he can muster, whether anything has occurred in the meantime that invalidates the way he then voted.
We were aware of the extent of the horror a year ago. Indeed, we had a worse incident and a worse total behind us then. We spoke and voted then in the shadow of the Birmingham incident, which resulted in 21 dead, and after a year in which 43 people were killed and over 500 injured. There has, alas, been little let up, but it has not been worse. There have been 11 killed and 255 injured—bad enough in all conscience—during the past year.
Last year I began my reply by saying that I rejected entirely—and I still do—any idea that those on one side of this argument were more virtuous than those on the other, and that those on one side were more the repositories of the values of civilisation than were those who took a different view. That I repeat. I hope and believe that at a time of considerable and continuing menace, when deep passions of apprehension and anger are stirred outside, all of us are giving our most informed judgment—without, for once, the help of the Whips—as to how, on a balance of probability and a basis of rational argument, we can best protect our people.
After rehearsing the traditional arguments—which I shall not do on this occasion—I said last year that I set them aside, even though they had swayed me deeply for 20 years or more, as they have many other hon. Members. They are not negligible. Far from it. Not the least of them, and the only one I shall mention, is the possibility of wrongful conviction.
716
In my two periods as Home Secretary I have had too many such cases to deal with, including three which have come to light in the past year, for them to be easily dismissed. It may be that they would be less likely to occur in a terrorist context. I do not know. However, in my consideration of this matter I am prepared to regard terrorist murder, if it can be defined, in a separate category, and to consider the issue without regard to previous conceptions and solely in relation to what would now give us the greatest protection.
I have already indicated that I have no regard for the lives of those who either wantonly or specifically set out to kill or maim others. Some of them blow themselves up. Others risk being shot by the police, quite lawfully, in the course of their nefarious activities. I believe that there is little danger of a trigger-happy police force. That was far from the case at the Spaghetti House, or in Balcombe Street. The police have been patient, resourceful, disciplined and determined. However, the loss that might occur to terrorist lives in these circumstances would be very different, in its effect, from the judicial exacting of the ultimate penalty.
I am still convinced that those who believe that that would be even an approach to a passport to security ignore or misjudge a number of vital considerations. First, they ignore the substantial and hazardous effluxion of time that is inevitably involved in the progress towards a judicial killing. We cannot avoid committal, trial, appeal and then the final stages. No doubt the old arrangements for appeal or otherwise might be varied. Lord Hailsham devoted all the great ingenuity of his powerful mind to putting forward an alternative arrangement this week. He propounded a sort of inverted parole board machinery—a multi-disciplinary group of perhaps six people, who would reach a final decision after the trial. I do not like it. What criteria would they possibly use? As I know only too well, faced with much easier decisions, parole boards often split. Confronted with these fraught decisions they would do so still more often, and frequently right down the middle. What would we do then? What are the prospects for an escalation of violence during these processes—general violence, the

717
taking of hostages, or specific violence against those involved in the processes?
I read a letter in The Times yesterday morning that suggested that the Birmingham bombings a year ago were directly due to my decision, which I believe commanded the support of the House, to ban a public funeral for the IRA man who had blown himself up in Coventry. The letter ended, rather inconsequentially, by demanding the death penalty. If the banning of a funeral caused 21 deaths, what do people imagine might be caused, provided the capacity was there, by the slow advance of judicial hanging upon a specified morning? It might be answered that the death penalty would deter, but would it? No one can suggest that being an Irish terrorist is a safe occupation. They have killed each other by the hundred in Ulster. Nor is such a view compatible with the facts of what is happening elsewhere, or the psychosis, as I would call it, of Irish terrorism itself.
Spain executed five terrorists in October. Where was the protection of fear that followed? Nine policemen were shot in the next fortnight. On the psychosis of Irish terrorism, death is of course the trade of the terrorists. No doubt their first desire is to deal it out to others, but it is a profound mistake to believe that they are not themselves prepared to become involved in part of the grisly deal. The importance of the funeral in their mythology is eloquent witness to that.
I shall not attempt to deal with the issue of martyrdom, which is a complicated one, but it would require a singular insensitivity to history to believe that its attractions do not have to be balanced against its highly doubtful deterrence. Some people may say that that applies only to the hard core of the terrorist movement—that one may create some perversely triumphant martyrs but that the supporting baggage train would at least be deterred. I disagree. Whatever the reaction of the moment, one would not, in practice, and least of all under Lord Hailsham's formula, be able to hang the members of the train. One cannot hang landladies, mothers who shelter their sons, or women who shelter their husbands. Do not let any of us deceive ourselves that we could or would. There could be few things more humiliating and counter-
718
productive than to introduce a much-proclaimed deterrent that promptly proceeded to break in our hands.
The next consideration ignored by the supporters of the motion, and the last one that I propose to mention, is the problem of how to deal with acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland itself. Capital punishment persisted there, on the statute book, until 1973. It was then abolished, as a considered act of policy in the midst of internecine slaughter far worse than anything that we have known in Great Britain, on the motion of the previous Government. Whatever we decided I do not think it would be practical to reintroduce capital punishment into Northern Ireland. It could certainly not be done without the jury system, which, for reasons we all understand, does not at present exist there. That was recognised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in the remarkable concluding paragraphs of his speech a year ago.
In effect, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should use this supreme weapon of deterrence in Great Britain where we have, alas, suffered 53 fatal casualties in a population of 55 million, but should not risk it in Northern Ireland, where they have suffered over 1,000 deaths in a population of 1½ million. Is that, on this basis, compatible with sense or any coherent view about the unity of the United Kingdom, in favour of which all Opposition Members voted in the Standing Committee this morning, on a finely-balanced technical point? Is it really the view that we should draw a sword of alleged deterrence in England and sheath it in Northern Ireland, where the threat is so much greater? What possible basis of logic or morality is there to that?
Two other points from last year's debate remain highly relevant today. The first is the reality of the threat of long-term, perhaps life-long, imprisonment. This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). The right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) raised it along with a number of other important points, most of which I think I can answer in my few remaining minutes. The question is whether terrorists believe in long-term imprisonment. I recognise that if long sentences were not believed in, that would be a grave weakness in our armoury,

719
always encouraged by statements in this House, would be very foolish.
Very long sentences have recently been imposed by the courts, and of the 45 people convicted last year of offences related to Irish terrorism, 12 have been sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 to sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years. These tough sentences were fortified by stern recommendations by the judges about the long-term future. I take those recommendations very seriously—indeed, they are written into our practice for dealing with such sentences—and so, I believe, will any of my successors in office.
There will be no amnesty. I recognise no political excuses for cold-blooded crimes of murder or maiming. Those who have committed them will serve for decades and, in some cases, until the end of their lives. That is my view, and it would be the view, I believe, of anyone who is likely to hold office.
I turn to the views of the police, to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred. He put forward the view of the Police Federation, which is of long standing. It has been opposed, not merely in this situation but in all, to the abolition of the death penalty, and I respect its view. The Federation is representative of a wide body of policemen. That does not mean that it speaks for all policemen, any more than any union that puts forward views on policies speaks for all of its members. But no doubt there are many in the police service, as outside it, who believe instinctively that capital punishment may help.
It is, however, my duty to take the greatest notice of the advice of those in the police service who carry the heaviest responsibility and who are best placed to take an overall view of the threat. A year ago I informed the House of the views of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which he had volunteered to me. Had he not done so I would certainly not have thought it right to ask him for a public statement. Equally, I have no intention of taking a running canvass of him or his senior officers, but in view of the strong interest that has been expressed to me by right hon. and hon. Members during this
720
debate I am prepared to give the view that he has again volunteered to me without the slightest prompting on my part.
The Commissioner has told me that he has in no way changed his views. He has also added that in his opinion the prospects of the police being able to deal successfully with kidnappers would be weakened and the risks to the lives of hostages made greater if the death penalty existed for terrorist murder. In short, he thinks that it would make his job harder rather than easier. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to disagree with that view. They should not, however, ignore it, coming as it does from a highly respected chief of police in a very responsible position.
There remains the fact that the public at large want capital punishment. We are all under pressure. I do not ignore this factor. I do, however, think that we should, all of us, be very careful about not encouraging the view that capital punishment, as it is sometimes put, is a policy of guts, and that resistance to it is a policy of softness. I am not clear upon what basis it requires more political guts to go into the "Aye" Lobby than to go into the "No" Lobby. I know that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has great courage—I have paid public tribute to it, and will continue so to do—but I certainly would not like to say that he has more courage than the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is the only one among us who has been twice subject to personally-directed attacks and who takes a different view.
We all owe our constituents great respect for their point of view, but we also owe them our judgment, and our courageous application of it to what is, in our considered view, the best protection that we can give them against the menace that we face and may have to continue to face in the difficult months that lie ahead.
There is no complete security either way. No one, in my view, should pretend to an infallibility of judgment or knowledge on this or on any other matter. But let us say, by our words and our votes, what we think right and not what we think expedient or acceptable. For those who are convinced of the value of the death penalty, there is no problem.

721
For others, unconvinced either way, it may be reasonable to vote in accordance with outside views, if they are sure that hanging, even if it does no good, will at least do no harm.
That is not my view, nor, I think, is it the view of the great majority of those who have had responsibility, whether in England or in Ireland, whether of this party or that, for dealing with this horrible problem. It could, and I believe would, increase and not diminish the risks to our people, our police, and our security services.
I can now give the right hon. Member for Carshalton the answer to his last question. There will be no lack of resources for carrying to the uttermost this battle against terrorism. There will be no giving in and no irresolution—but neither shall we seek the false remedy of arming ourselves with a weapon which, while superficially attractive to many, would be not merely ineffective against the enemy but dangerous to our own cause.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his speech, if not for his conclusions. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate and particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been in her place from start to finish to mark the importance that she thinks this matter has for the country.
I have time to make only one concluding point. It is that if the motion is rejected—I repeat that it is a motion in general principle which has nothing to do with whether it would apply here, there or anywhere else: either one is for the death penalty or against it for terrorist offences causing death—three groups will think that we are out of our minds.
The first group are the police. Time and again the impression has been given here that the police are against capital punishment. That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing that I have heard, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for putting that matter right. They are in the front line of our security. Those who thought that security was the all-important point in the consideration of whether capital punishment would help
722
should bear in mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of the police force, who are our security, think that they would be more secure if we had capital punishment for these crimes than if we did not.
I note with interest that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police gave a very limited statement to the Home Secretary. He spoke about the death penalty being inadvisable for kidnapping and the taking of hostages. He said nothing about its being a deterrent. He said nothing about this being his view as a reflection of the will of his force. It is clear that the Commissioner chooses his words, and has chosen his words on this occasion, with great care.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: He began by saying that he had in no way changed the wider expression of his views that I gave to the House last year.
Mr. Lawrence: That has always been the personal view—the personal view—of the Commissioner. It is not the view of the police force that he represents.
The second group of people who will think that we are out of our minds are the people of this country, who simply will not understand why, when they are overwhelmingly—not just widely and deeply, but overwhelmingly—in favour of capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death, we pay no regard to their views.
The third group of people who will think that we are out of our minds are the terrorists themselves. They are not deterred by life imprisonment and they are certainly not deterred by life imprisonment with the promise or hope of amnesty. They are deterred by capital punishment. If they had any spokesmen in this House—I hope to goodness they have not—which side do hon. Members think they would be voting for? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yours."] They would be voting against this motion.
What we need tonight is not excuses for not doing something. What we need and what the country needs is some firmness of purpose and some leadership. I should like to quote some words of Solzhenitsyn which are not inapt:
"Hijackings and other forms of terrorism have been spreading tenfold precisely because everyone is ready to capitulate before them.

723
But as soon as some firmness is shown, terrorism can be smashed for ever."
Let us, I ask, show the police and the terrorists and our people that we will not capitulate to the terrorists but that by firmness we shall smash terrorism. All of us who hate and despise terrorism
can show what we feel about it tonight by voting for the motion.
Question put,
That this House demands capital punish-men for terrorist offences causing death:—
The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 361.

Division No. 15.]

AYES

[6.58 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Glyn, Dr Alan

Moate, Roger

Aitken Jonathan

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Molyneaux, James

Alison, Michael

Goodhart, Philip

Monro, Hector

Arnold, Tom

Goodhew, Victor

Montgomery, Fergus

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Gorst, John

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Awdry, Daniel

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Banks, Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morgan, Geraint

Bell, Ronald

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Gray, Hamish

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grieve, Percy

Mudd, David

Berry, Hon Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon

Neave, Airey

Biffen, John

Grylls, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

Hall, Sir John

Normanton, Tom

Blaker, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Nott, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Cranley

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hannam, John

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Osborn, John

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Page, John (Harrow West)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Havers, Sir Michael

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Brittan, Leon

Hawkins, Paul

Paisley, Rev Ian

Brotherton, Michael

Henderson, Douglas

Parkinson, Cecil

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hicks, Robert

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bryan, Sir Paul

Holland, Philip

Penhaligon, David

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Ian

Bulmer, Esmond

Howell, David (Guildford)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Burden, F. A.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pink. R, Bonner

Butler, Adam (Bosworth

Hunt, John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Carlisle, Mark

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Carson, John

James, David

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

Raison, Timothy

Churchill, W. S.

Jessel, Toby

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Clegg, Walter

Jopling, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Cockcroft, John

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Cope, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Cordie, John H.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Ridsdale, Julian

Cormack, Patrick

Kershaw, Anthony

Rifkind, Malcolm

Corrie, John

Kilfedder, James

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Critchley, Julian

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Crouch, David

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Crowder, F. P.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lane, David

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Doig, Peter

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Drayson, Burnaby

Lawrence, Ivan

Scott-Hopkins, James

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lawson, Nigel

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Dunnett, Jack

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Durant, Tony

Lestor, Jim (Beeston)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Shepherd, Colin

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shersby, Michael

Elliott, Sir William

Loveridge, John

Sims, Roger

Emery, Peter

Luce, Richard

Sinclair, Sir George

Eyre, Reginald

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacCormick, Iain

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Fairgrieve, Russell

McCrindle, Robert

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Farr, John

McCusker, H.

Speed, Keith

Fell, Anthony

Macfarlane, Neil

Spence, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

MacGregor, John

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Marten, Neil

Sproat, Iain

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mather, Carol

Stainton, Keith

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Maude, Angus

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fox, Marcus

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Stanley, John

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mawby, Ray

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Fry, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Mayhew, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stokes, John

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Miscampbell, Norman

Tapsell, Peter

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Tebbit, Norman

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Winterton, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Warren, Kenneth

Younger, Hon George

Trotter, Neville

Watt, Hamish

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Weatherill, Bernard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Wells, John

Mr. Michael Mates and

Viggers, Peter

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Teddy Tay'or

Wakeham, John

Wiggin, Jerry

NOES

Abse, Leo

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Allaun, Frank

Delargy, Hugh

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Anderson, Donald

Dempsey, James

Huckfield, Les

Archer, Peter

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ashley, Jack

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ashton, Joe

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hunter, Adam

Atkinson, Norman

Dunn, James A.

Hurd, Douglas

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Dykes, Hugh

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Baker, Kenneth

Eadie, Alex

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Edge, Geoff

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Edward3, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Bean, R. E.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Janner, Greville

Beith, A. J.

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

English, Michael

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Ennals, David

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Benyon, W.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Bishop, E. S.

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

John, Brynmor

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Boardman, H.

Evans, John (Newton)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Body, Richard

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Booth, Albert

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Judd, Frank

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Filch, Alan (Wigan)

Kaufman, Gerald

Bradley, Tom

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Kelley, Richard

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Flannery, Martin

Kerr, Russell

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Kinnock, Neil

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ford, Ben

Knox, David

Buchan, Norman

Forrester, John

Lambie, David

Buchanan, Richard

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lamborn, Harry

Buck, Antony

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Lamond, James

Budgen, Nick

Freeson, Reginald

Lamont, Norman

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Freud, Clement

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Campbell, Ian

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Canavan, Dennis

George, Bruce

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Cant, R. B.

Gilbert, Dr John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Carmichael, Neil

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Lipton, Marcus

Carr, Rt Hon Robert

Ginsburg, David

Litterick, Tom

Carter, Ray

Golding, John

Lloyd, Ian

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Goodlad, Alastair

Luard, Evan

Cartwright, John

Gould, Bryan

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Gourlay, Harry

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Channon, Paul

Graham, Ted

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Clemitson, Ivor

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McCartney, Hugh

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Grant, John (Islington C)

McElhone, Frank

Cohen, Stanley

Grist, Ian

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Coleman, Donald

Grocott, Bruce

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Concannon, J. D.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mackintosh, John P.

Conlan, Bernard

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Maclennan, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hardy, Peter

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Corbett, Robin

Harper, Joseph

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

McNamara, Kevin

Crawshaw, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Madden, Max

Cronin, John

Hatton, Frank

Madel, David

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Hayhoe, Barney

Magee, Bryan

Cryer, Bob

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mahon, Simon

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Davidson, Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Marks, Kenneth

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Heseltine, Michael

Marquand, David

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Higgins, Terence L.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hooley, Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hooson, Emlyn

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Deakins, Eric

Horam, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Meacher, Michael

726

727

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Richardson, Miss Jo

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Mendelson, John

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Mikardo, Ian

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Thompson, George

Millan, Bruce

Roderick, Caerwyn

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tierney, Sydney

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Rooker, J. W.

Tinn, James

Moonman, Eric

Roper, John

Tomlinson, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Rose, Paul B.

Torney, Tom

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Rowlands, Ted

Tuck, Raphael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Tugendhat, Christopher

Moyle, Roland

Sainsbury, Tim

Urwin, T. W.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Sandelson, Neville

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Nelson, Anthony

Scott, Nicholas

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Newens, Stanley

Sedgemore, Brian

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

Newton, Tony

Selby, Harry

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Noble, Mike

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Oakes, Gordon

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Walters, Dennis

Ogden, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Ward, Michael

O'Halloran, Michael

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Watkins, David

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Watkinson, John

Orbach, Maurice

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Weetch, Ken

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wellbeloved, James

Ovenden, John

Sillars, James

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Owen, Dr David

Silverman, Julius

White, James (Pollok)

Padley, Walter

Skinner, Dennis

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Palmer, Arthur

Small, William

Whitlock, William

Pardoe, John

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Park, George

Snape, Peter

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Parker, John

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Parry, Robert

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Pavitt, Laurie

Stallard, A. W.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Pendry, Tom

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Perry, Ernest

Stoddart, David

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Stott, Roger

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Stradling Thomas J.

Woodall, Alec

Prescott, John

Strang, Gavin

Woof, Robert

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Price, William (Rugby)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Young, David (Bolton E)

Radice, Giles

Swain, Thomas

Rathbone, Tim

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Mr. Alf Bates and

Reid, George

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL LIST BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. GEORGE. THOMAS in the Chair}

  CIVIL LIST BILL
    Clause 1

      SUPPLEMENTS TO SUMS PAYABLE UNDER CIVIL LIST ACTS
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
      The House will recall that on Second Reading of the Bill last week the Prime Minister, referring to the Civil List Act 1972 which made provision for reports from the Royal Trustees, said:
      "The Civil List Act 1972 was not, however, intended to create a system of annual reviews of the Civil List payments, nor is the procedure that it created—the formal reports by Royal Trustees—suitable for the purpose. That is the basic reason for the legislation which is now before the House."
      The Prime Minister went on to say, referring to his statement on 12th February, that the Government had decided to recommend the House to agree to legislation, provided that any further increases in provision for the Civil List should be subject to normal House of Commons Supply procedure, and he explained specifically the reasons for repealing the section of the 1972 Act which required the Royal Trustees to present an annual report. He said:
      "that the Royal Trustees should report if at any time they think that the Civil List expenditure for the next year will exceed the sums available for meeting that expenditure. This provision, which, as I have said, was intended to be an exceptional provision, would, at a time of inflation, certainly become an annual requirement should the terms of the Act remain unchanged."
      The Prime Minister went on to say:
      "I hope the House will agree that it is undesirable that the Royal Trustees should be required to report annually.—[Official Report, 4th December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1980–83.]
      That is the provision that I seek to reinstate. I seek to go back to the 1972 Act. The Royal Trustees should report annually, and I shall try to explain why.
      The Glasgow Herald, which is not normally a Labour paper, made its own
      730
      assessment of the reasons for this Bill on 26th November when it said on the front page:
      "Queen's pay to be buried'."
      The article said:
      "The Government acted yesterday in an attempt to remove the money the State pays the Queen out of the sphere of political controversy. The Civil List Bill, published yesterday, removes the need for the Royal Trustees to approach Parliament for additions to the Civil List, the money voted to meet the Queen's expenses."
      Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Is it not the custom or tradition of this House that a Member declares his interest at the beginning of his speech'? In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has an interest in the Queen, and has made considerable sums of money which he has not devoted to a good cause, should he not declare his interest?
      The Chairman: We all have an interest in the Queen. Every hon. Member decides for himself whether he has an interest to declare to the House.
      Mr. Hamilton: I am not very interested in what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) says, but I am glad she is here. She is paid very large sums of money for attending the European Parliament when she should be accountable here. But she was not here last week when we had the Second Reading of the Bill.
      Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Member come to the point?
      Mr. Hamilton: I shall. The hon. Lady has found a good excuse for letting her constituents know that she is here at all.
      Mrs. Ewing: Come to the point.
      Mr. Hamilton: I shall deal with the point in my own good way. I suggest that the hon. Lady gets her facts right and makes them outside this Chamber.
      Mrs. Ewing: Unlike the hon. Member, I do make them outside.
      The Chairman: Order. I must ask the House to cool down, or at least the two hon. Members concerned, and let us proceed with the amendment.
      Mr. Hamilton: I was quoting from the Glasgow Herald, which went on to say
      "Instead it is intended that payment will be made from the Consolidated Fund on an annual basis."
      The Prime Minister added on 4th December:
      "Estimates for increases in 1976 will, when this legislation is enacted, be presented in the usual way and the House will have the same opportunity to discuss and decide those Increases as it has to discuss any other voted money."
      No further assurances were given on that.
      In my speech on that occasion, I asked whether this meant that there would be occasions for debate, as with various Departments, with a Minister present to answer specific questions on payments made to members of the Royal Household, whether individuals of the Family or the Household in general. I got no replies at all but only a general brush-off by the Prime Minister when he replied to the debate. I shall come specifically to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
      The Prime Minister's last remarks were along the lines of what the hon. Lady has just said. He said:
      "In view of the kind remarks my hon. Friend"—
      he was referring to me—
      "made about me, as he always does in these matters, I shall make one further reference to him. He referred to 'hangers on' of the Royal Family"
      I did not refer to them at all, but that is by the way.
      "I doubt whether there is anyone better rewarded or who is a greater beneficiary from the existence of the monarchy—I would not wish to be so offensive as to refer to a 'hanger on'—through his writings than my hon. Friend."—[Official Report, 4th December 1975; Vol. 901, cc. 1983, 2016.]
      Those remarks, delivered in that manner, reveal more about the Prime Minister than they do about me. At least I had the honesty to put in my declaration of Member's interests the fact that I was getting royalties from the only book I have ever written. I tell the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn that she had better find out what is happening to that money.
      Mrs. Ewing: I have asked.
      Mr. Hamilton: If she makes that statement outside the House, I shall take action against her.
      Mrs. Ewing: Answer the question.
      Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I am answering. I hope that I am answering the Prime Minister too. His attack on me came at a stage in his speech when it could not be answered, which was unbecoming of a Prime Minister or any other Minister speaking of one of his own supporters. However, I want to put the question again.
      As I understand it, there is to be no statutory requirement on the Royal Trustees to present an annual report. I do not know why that is, unless it is to conceal something. As I have said, the Prime Minister told the House that any further increases in provision should be subject to normal House of Commons Supply procedure. Does that cover annuitants? As I understood it, later in his speech the Prime Minister said that the Queen herself would provide £150,000 a year out of her own income towards the expenses of the Civil List for 1975, and I think that the figure is currently estimated to be £120,000.
      The implication is that this House will not be informed whether any increase has been given to the annuitants who are now covered by the Civil List Acts. Does that mean that we shall not be able to ascertain what the annuitants will be getting?
      The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) claimed in that debate that the Bill was bringing the matter into the public arena. Far from doing that, however, it will make it more and more secretive. In the early stages of the Civil List, virtually no evidence was taken by Select Committees. Hardly any information was made public. This House was scarcely aware of the reasons for increases in Civil List expenditure. It was only in 1971–72 that a Select Committee decided to take evidence, publish it and present it to the House. That Committee also decided, however, against my vote, that there would never be another such Select Committee but that instead we would have these reports by the Royal Trustees annually and that an Order would be laid by the Government and could be debated. Now we are to be deprived of those annual reports and we are, therefore, receding into secrecy.
      I do not believe that any institution of this country ought to be shrouded in

      733
      mystery. Public money is involved, and we should be able to ask questions and to scrutinise every penny of public expenditure. Clause 1 is a move in the opposite direction. That is why I seek to delete it and to reinsert the provisions of the 1972 Act.
      The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): The amendment seeks to retain the requirement that the Royal Trustees shall report more frequently than once in every 10 years. It would have this effect despite the provision in Clause 1(1) allowing additional payments to be made from Votes, because the Consolidated Fund provision of the 1972 Act would be insufficient, of itself, to meet Civil List expenditure in any year.
      Traditionally, provision for the Civil List has been made at the beginning of a reign and has continued for the duration of that reign. The provision in 1952. for instance, lasted for 17 years. It was the Select Committee's intention that the revised arrangements made in 1972 should last for between five and 10 years. As amended, the 1972 Act will therefore require the Royal Trustees to report at least once in every 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) takes exception to that period, but I think that most hon. Members would agree with the Government that it is reasonable.
      I want to set my hon. Friend's mind at rest. This procedure does not mean that there will be no opportunity to debate these matters at more frequent intervals. It will be possible for every hon. Member to pursue any particular point under the normal Supply procedure. This is because the payments to be made to the Royal Trustees under Clause 1(1) will be subject to the normal Supply procedure in the House, in the same way as any other expenditure.
      In addition, payments by the Royal Trustees will be audited by the Auditor of the Civil List—I hope that this meets my hon. Friend's point—and a statement of these payments will be appended to the Appropriation Account at the end of the year. Full information, therefore, regarding supplementary payments will be available at annual intervals. Actual expenditure will be detailed in the Appropriation Account after it has been incurred, so that hon. Members will be
      734
      able to see who spent the money and where it went, and will be able t
      to assure themselves that it was not used for private purposes.
      We have, therefore, three ways in which these matters can be discussed. We have the normal Supply procedure in relation to extra payments every year, the Appropriation Account and the opportunity to debate the report and, every 10 years, the report of the Royal Trustees. I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that this is sweeping the matter under the carpet. Knowing his ingenuity and knowledge of our procedure, I am sure that he will fully avail himself of the opportunities. In the circumstances, I feel that we have gone a long way to meet the points that he has made in the past, and with that assurance I hope that he will not press the amendment.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister of State has summed up the matter very well. The whole object of the exercise originally was that the Civil List should last for a reign, but circumstances have changed so much and inflation has raged so high that we have been compelled to find some other method, and this is the method that has been chosen. The period of from five to 10 years is not unreasonable.
      The points raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) are well covered, because originally this matter was debatable only at times when the Crown had to ask Parliament for more money. Now, because it is paid for out of public moneys, we can debate it every year. I cannot see why the hon. Member for Fife, Central is objecting. If anything, this makes the matter more liable to scrutiny than ever before. Continual arguments over these matters should be avoided. Let us recognise that the Crown does an extremely good job, and so do all the members of the Royal Family. They are entitled to be remunerated, and I hope the House will not continue to debate these subjects in this way.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. William Hamilton: At the moment the House and country know what sums are paid to individual members of the Royal Family. Can the Minister give me an assurance that, in the Appropriation Account or in another way, we shall

      735
      be able to follow the trends of the annuities each year? If there is an increase in any annuity, shall we be able to see it?
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I can only repeat what I have already told my hon. Friend. Actual expenditure will be detailed in the Appropriation Account and hon. Members will be able to see who was spending the money and where it went, and will be able to assure themselves that it has not been used for private purposes.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      CIVIL LIST SUPPLEMENTARY SUMS AND GOVERNMENT'S INCOMES POLICY
      No moneys payable under this Act shall be used for purposes that go beyond the Government's incomes policy.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In moving the Second Reading of this Bill last week the Prime Minister indicated that there was nothing in it that infringed the terms of the Government's incomes policy. He pointed out that 75 per cent. of the provision in the Civil List was for the wages of the Royal Household—for gardeners, kitchen-maids and the rest. However, there are a certain number at the top whose incomes have nothing to do with Civil Service rates.
      I was in my constituency at the weekend, knocking on doors and hearing about individual cases, as I usually do, and I was asked to call on a working widow who had tax problems. Her situation is not irrelevant to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said that the Bill has to be seen in the context of the fight against inflation in which we are all, more or less, engaged. This widow showed me her pay slip for last month. Her gross
      736
      wage was £64, out of which she paid tax of more than £20. Her widow's pension was treated as unearned income.
      In the debate last week, the Prime Minister talked some nonsense about somebody giving £150,000 to the annuitants. How can we be sure that the £150,000 will not be distributed in a way that infringes the Government's pay policy? I suggest that it must do so. If we take the number of people involved and divide that figure into £150,000, we find that it comes to well over £6 a week. Unlike the working widow in my constituency, the money for these individuals will be untaxed. They will be getting a substantial increase—well above the pay limits set by the Government—and it will be completely untaxed, because the money will be regarded as a gift from "A" to "B" within the Royal Family. It will not be subject to tax. That was made clear in evidence to the Civil List Select Committee in 1971 in relation to members of the Royal Family who are not annuitants. However, future increases to annuitants will be in the form of a gift from the Queen and will not be subject to the £6 limit or to tax.
      Mr. David Howell: No doubt the Minister of State will answer the hon. Member's specific point. He knows that we find his views objectionable, but why does he continue to say something for which we can find very little corroboration in the Report of the Select Committee of which he was a member? The Report said:
      "These annuities are specifically charged on the Consolidated Fund and are liable to tax in the ordinary way; but the Treasury in the exercise of their statutory powers exempt such part as in their opinion represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which the annuities are payable."
      Why does the hon. Member continue to say they are untaxed, when the Select Committee's Report and several other authorities' point out that they are dealt with by the Treasury in the normal way?
      Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member should follow these matters more closely. I agree with what he said to a point. The annuitants specifically mentioned in the Civil List Act are those whose incomes are known. They are 100 per cent. tax-exempt because their earnings are

      737
      regarded by the Treasury as wholly incurred expenses. The £35,000 a year received by Princess Margaret is presumed to be all spent on expenses. The same is true of the £35,000 received by Princess Anne and of the Queen Mother, with her £95,000 a year. While in theory these incomes are taxed, in practice they are not taxed.
      Dr. Glyn: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has explained that the position is no different from that of any other citizen who is able to say to the Inland Revenue This amount of money has been spent on public duties and I am, therefore, entitled to set it against my tax." The expenses of members of the Royal Family in proportion to their income is probably much higher, because they spend their time performing public duties.
      Mr. Hamilton: The public at large will form their own conclusion on that. I read regularly every day the Court Circular—it is my favourite reading. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that, he will see how grossly overworked are some members of the Royal Family. Indeed, witnesses before the Civil List Select Committee said that members of the Royal Family incurred in expenses more than they received from annuities. Where do they get that money from? What are they living on if they spend more than the State gives them? There must be something wrong there. I find it difficult to believe that the Queen Mother is spending more than £95,000 on expenses.
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is going beyond the strict terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Thomas, but I was replying to the intervention.
      In the Second Reading debate the Prime Minister referred to members of the Royal Family who were not annuitants under the terms of the Civil List Act 1972. At col. 1984 he referred to the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and others who were provided for by a global sum within the Civil List Act 1972 which the Queen distributed at her discretion. Those people will not get increases pro-
      738
      vided for by the taxpayer. The Queen will give a sum which will be distributed among them. Those are the sums to which I am referring. The moneys hitherto provided by Parliament to members of the Royal Family who are not annuitants will increasingly be provided from the Queen's private resources. It is that part of the money which will not be taxed. If the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will take home with him and read the evidence given to the Civil List Select Committee, he will find that what I say is right. It is stated specifically that that money is in the form of a gift from one person to another. At the time when that report was published Princess Alexandra was getting £20,000 per year as a gift from the Queen—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but the clause deals specifically with the moneys payable under the Bill and with nothing else.
      Mr. Hamilton: I agree. I am trying at the same time to educate the hon. Member for Guildford and to keep in order. It is difficult to do both. If the hon. Gentleman will take the book home with him and read it tonight, we shall be able to have a chat next week.
      The Minister of State must give an undertaking that in no circumstances will anyone in the Royal Household, from the top to the bottom, get more than the current going rate under the Government's incomes policy. The £6 limit has been observed by trade union leaders in an amazing way. The whole country hopes that the policy will work. It stands a much better chance of working if we get a lead from the top. The sort of lead the miners want is a statement that nobody in the Royal Household will get an increase of more than £6 a week and that the Government's incomes policy will be strictly adhered to.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. James Dempsey: When my hon. Friend refers to "nobody", does he include all the household employees of the Royal Family, such as joiners, plumbers, Mrs. Mopps and cooks? If they are included, will my hon. Friend tell me whether he has arrived at any conclusion as to whether the global sum is more than the £6 ceilinghich has been fixed?
      Mr. Hamilton: I dare say that the kitchen-maids, chauffeurs and similar employees deserve more than £6 a week, but that is the maximum under the Government's pay policy. It should be the maximum for everyone. My hon. Friend has made a good point. He might have tabled a new clause to provide that anyone employed in the Royal Household earning less than £20 or £30 a week should fall outside the incomes policy and be able to get more than £6 a week.
      I am concerned with the people at the other end of the scale. They should be setting an example. After all, they say that they are the unifying force in the nation. They set the moral lead for the nation, and the nation is yearning for that lead to get us out of our difficulties.
      I have had shoals of letters in the last week wishing me good luck and more power to my elbow. The Inland Revenue takes one-third of an income of £60 a month, yet we are producing this Bill. I feel that it is a sad commentary on the Labour Government that the first Bill to get on the statute book this Session, in probably the most difficult economic circumstances we have known since the 1930s, should deal with a specially privileged section of the community. It is a scandal and it will not get my support.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I hope that I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest on the issues he has raised. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the Second Reading debate and in February, any increases payable under the arrangements set out in the Bill will be entirely in line with the Government's incomes policy. That policy, however, is a voluntary one, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be inconsistent, to say the least, to seek to apply to the Royal Household statutory restrictions which do not apply to other members of the community.
      Wages and salaries in the Royal Household are, wherever possible, closely linked with comparable Civil Service rates, which are themselves negotiated with the Civil Service staff associations and unions. The additional money to be provided through the Royal Trustees will be subject to Government control in the normal way, and the Committee can be assured
      740
      that, in so far as the money is required to pay salaries and wages, the amounts will be limited so as to provide the increases approved for comparable grades in the Civil Service.
      There are 347 full-time members of the Royal Household, officials and staff who will all be covered in one way or another by the Government's pay policy. Eight members of the Household are linked to Civil Service grades for whom increases were recommended under the Boyle Report. Eighty-three members of the Royal Household are linked to Civil Service grades ranging from typist to assistant secretary. Twenty messengers and domestic staff are linked to Civil Service or National Health Service grades. Two hundred and thirty-six domestic, garage and stable staff and gardeners are without a firm link to Civil Service grades but their pay increases follow strictly the percentage rate of increase to linked staff.
      In so far as the expenditure is on wages and salaries, it will be covered by the Government's general counter-inflation policy. We believe that that policy should be voluntary. We do not believe that it would be right—as my hon. Friend seems to suggest—to make it a statutory policy for the employees of the Royal Household.
      I ask the House to reject the amendment so that we can apply the voluntary policy to employees of the Royal Household as to other employees. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with my assurance that we are applying the policy equally to employees of the Royal Household as to everyone else.
      Mr. William Hamilton: May I press my hon. Friend a little further? Will he give me a categorical assurance that the annuitants will not get more than £6 a week increase in the next 12 months?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: There is a point that is disturbing me. It was said that a widow's pension was taxable as unearned income. I understood that it was taxable as earned income. Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate that point?
      Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure whether the Minister answered, but in no circumstances whatever should any member of the Royal Household from the top to the

      741
      bottom, get more than is allowed within the Government's income policy.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I made it clear that there are 347 full-time members of the Household, officials and staff, and they will all be subject to the controls under the Government's counter-inflation policy.
      Mr. Hamilton: Does this include the annuitants? A nod will not be shown in the Official Report. My hon. Friend must get up and say "No".
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: As hon. Members will know, I take a somewhat different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on incomes policy, because I have always taken the view that the people most affected are usually those who can be gathered together at the bottom end of the wages scale. The many other people at the top end cannot be monitored effectively, because nobody really knows what their wages are, as has been indicated in this case. Even if their wages could be monitored by Government officials—countless numbers would be needed for the purpose—the fact is that they get their income also in the form of perquisites of one kind or another, as well as by means of tax relief and so on. This has been amply demonstrated by my hon. Friend in the course of this very short debate.
      Whereas I differ from my hon. Friend quite distinctly on the question of incomes policy, which is mainly directed against the people I represent, I am still a little unsure what the Minister is answering in respect of those at the very top end who cannot, in my view, be covered by the Government's present incomes policy or, for that matter, any incomes policy.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps I may repeat that the payments about which we are concerned in the Bill are in the main payments to members of the Royal Household. The annuitants to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred are not members of the Royal Household.
      As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are concerned in the main with payments to the Royal Household for wages and salaries, and it is in relation to these payments that we are
      742
      debating the clause. The annuitants, I repeat, are not members of the Royal Household. We are concerned in the main with wages and salaries to the Royal Household, and all the members of it, from top to bottom, will be subject to the Government's counter-inflation policy.
      Mr. Hamilton: That does not answer my question. The incomes policy either applies to everybody or it does not. The annuitants might not come within the terms of the Bill but the wages policy covers everybody. Perhaps the Minister will risk being out of order and tell me whether the annuitants will be inside the incomes policy or not.
      Question put and negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  7.59 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Concannon): I beg to move,
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): This set of Regulations is a very narrow one.
  Mr. Concannon: The effect of these Regulations is to require drivers to lock and immobilise unattended vehicles. Failure to do so will constitute a criminal offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and render the offender liable to imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to £400, or both.
  The purpose of the Regulations is twofold. First, the measures are part of the Government's campaign to reduce lawlessness in Northern Ireland. In the first nine months of 1975, no fewer than 6,674 motor vehicles were stolen. No doubt many of these thefts were opportunist crimes: young persons finding an

  743
  unlocked car succumbed to the temptation to steal it. Many of these might have been prevented. Each theft, moreover, means involvement of police time—which could better be devoted to more serious matters in the circumstances of Northern Ireland at present—as well as distress and inconvenience to the owner.
  The second purpose is much more important, and is the reason why these measures are being brought forward in the form of Regulations under the Emergency Provisions Act. In the first nine months of this year, 273 stolen or hijacked vehicles are known to have been used for terrorist-type crimes. If a terrorist in Northern Ireland wishes to shoot members of the other community, he usually steals a car to aid his getaway. If a terrorist wishes to move guns, ammunition and explosives, he usually steals a car. If a terrorist wishes to make a car bomb—one of the most terrifying and appalling manifestations of terrorism arising in Northern Ireland—he invariably steals a car. A stolen car is as important to him as a gun. Anything, therefore, that will make the theft of a car more difficult for the terrorist may save lives and increase the chances of apprehending the terrorist.
  It is true, of course, that the experienced car thief operating in ideal conditions will not always be defeated by a locked and immobilised car, but the inexperienced will be deterred by a well-secured vehicle. Even the experts will need considerably more time to bypass a lock and immobilisation device, a factor that will increase the likelihood of his being caught in the act, especially when he is operating in urban surroundings. The immediate effect of the Regulations should be that fewer cars will be stolen and less valuable police time will be spent in recording and tracing stolen vehicles.
  Regrettably, the Regulations will impose restrictions on the law-abiding motorist. It is to be hoped, however, that most motorists, particularly in Northern Ireland, will already lock their cars and remove the keys when leaving them unattended. Most cars produced since 1972 have had an immobilisation device fitted as an integral part of the car during manufacture, usually in the form of a steering lock. It is the motorists
  744
  with older cars who will be put to the most inconvenience and, perhaps, some expense. They will have to provide a device to immobilise their vehicle, although the Government have tried to minimise the inconvenience and expense by allowing a three-months' period before the immobilisation provision takes effect and by providing that, if a motorist does not wish to purchase a device, he shall be entitled to immobilise his car by removing, say, part of the engine.
  The benefits for the community, however, should outweigh the inconvenience and expense. Innocent lives can be saved, as well as valuable police time. In placing these Regulations before Parliament, we are asking the people of Northern Ireland to help the security forces and themselves. I shall now turn to the details of the Regulations.
  Regulations 1 and 2 specify the date on which the substantive provisions wilt come into operation and interpret various terms used.
  Regulation 3(1) sets out the conditions that must be fulfilled before a motor vehicle may be left unattended. They are that the ignition key should be removed, the doors locked, and any other openings into the vehicle secured to prevent entry, and that the car should be left with the steering locked or otherwise rendered incapable of being taken away.
  The first three conditions are precautions that are normally taken by any prudent motorist. Regulation 3(1)(c) is drafted in a way that allows drivers to leave a window or sun roof slightly open in case it is necessary for a child or pet to be left in the car. The only requirement is that access to the vehicle should not be possible as a result.
  Regulation 3(1)(d), the immobilisation provision, is novel. It has been widely drafted to cover all types of effective immobilisation devices. These might include steering locks, fuel lead locks, locks applied to the gear box and hidden switches in the ignition system. The motorist will also have the choice of removing part of the engine. It is not the means but the effect which is important.
  Although, as I have explained, most modern vehicles are fitted with steering locks, some private motorists and commercial users will need to fit devices to

  745
  their vehicles. It would be unreasonable to expect this to be done in every case immediately after the Regulations are made. Regulation 5 therefore provides that the immobilisation provisions contained in Regulation 3(1)(d) shall not come into force until three months after the Regulations as a whole come into operation. All the other provisions come into operation 14 days after the Regulations are made.
  Regulation 3(2) defines "unattended". The vehicle is "unattended" if there is not at least one person over 15 years of age in or on the vehicle, or in the immediate vicinity and sight of the vehicle. One person cannot be in attendance of more than one vehicle for purposes of the Regulations. It will not be permissible, therefore, to leave a car unsecured in a car park where someone may technically be in attendance of a vehicle but cannot be regarded as taking care of it. Tradesmen making door—to—door deliveries will not be required to lock and immobilise unless they go out of sight of their vehicle.
  Regulation 3(1) enables a driver to leave a vehicle unlocked and immobilised, provided that he has a reasonable excuse for doing so. The onus of proof that there is reasonable excuse lies with the driver. It is not of course possible to specify the precise circumstances in which motorists will consider it necessary to leave their cars unlocked.
  Regulation 4 provides for certain exemptions. Vehicles left in locked premises, the keys to which have been taken away, are not subject to the Regulations. Also excluded are vehicles being used by the security forces or for purposes of the other emergency services, and other public service vehicles that are not considered likely to be stolen.
  In conclusion, the Government are constantly reviewing their policy in Northern Ireland in the light of the security situation. The measure before the House should be seen as a response to clear indications that car thefts in Northern Ireland are running at an unacceptably high level and that stolen cars play an important part in terrorist crime. As a result of this measure, life for the terrorist will become harder. The security forces' task will become easier.
  746
  The Regulations are an illustration of the Government's determination to ensure that the whole community in Northern Ireland is doing everything possible to support the security forces. As such, I commend them to the House.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: As you told us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Regulations are narrow in scope. They have been clearly explained to the House by the Under-Secretary, and I shall be brief.
  I recall that early in the troubles I was staying with friends in County Down. My host on one occasion stopped his car and we alighted to do some shopping. He then locked the car, after some fumbling with his key, and apologised for doing so. He said "We never used to lock our cars in Ulster, but the security authorities have asked us to do so." Times have changed, lamentably, since Northern Ireland was so law-abiding a Province that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was less numerous than the police employed in Grosvenor Square to prevent demonstrators against the Vietnam war from attacking the American Embassy. The present troubles have now lasted longer than either world war.
  It is, therefore, surprising that these Regulations have only lately been brought before the House. One would have thought perhaps that measures of this kind would have been introduced long ago. The people of Londonderry, for example—and we are debating in the shadow of the latest heavy bomb explosion on the Limavady Road—have long known that the stolen or hijacked motor vehicle is, as the hon. Gentleman said, as much a terrorist weapon as the bomb. It is used to plant the bomb, to transport the bomber or the assassin, and to enable him to make his escape.
  What the people of Londonderry have known for a long time the people of London now know. I hope that the Home Secretary will be aware of the proceedings in the House this evening, because what we are passing this evening may have its application also in Great Britain.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: There is one United Kingdom and there is one war on.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Opposition therefore welcome this necessary but belated measure. We understand, of course, that it will cause some inconvenience and some expense to members of the public. However, because it is, as the Minister said, intended to save lives and to save police time, we must of course give it our support.
  I think that all will be glad that the public in Northern Ireland are to be given a further three months before it becomes compulsory to immobilise—as opposed to locking—an unattended vehicle. We should be interested in hearing anything that the Under-Secretary can tell us about the number of stolen, hijacked or unlicensed vehicles believed to be at large in Northern Ireland at present.
  It is now some while since I had the privilege of accompanying a special patrol group from Mount Pottinger RUC station in Belfast. A constable who was with us in the vehicle—the "pig"—had stored in his retentive mina the numbers of, it seemed, hundreds of stolen cars. That very evening, before we had been out for more than an hour, the special patrol group was able to retrieve about three stolen or abandoned cars in the streets of the capital city of Northern Ireland. They were, and I believe still are, legion. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any progress that has been made in the enforcement of the law in this regard, particularly near the border?
  8.8 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: These Regulations are narrow, but the Order that will come after them is not so narrow, and some of the remarks that will be made tonight on the Order will be made in answer to certain strictures that were passed upon hon. Members on this Bench in a previous debate. We shall be hopeful that the Secretary of State, who is charged with putting people in the dock, will answer the question whether Members on this Bench should be put in the dock and what charges he would like to see laid against them—or dissociate himself from the despicable remarks made by an hon. Member—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman because we are now discussing the Regulations relating to motor vehicles. We shall have a wide debate on the Order
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry for anticipating that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) might have had a record but for the Unionist Party, which withdrew the charge against him.
  We are dealing with a matter that needs our serious consideration. Any step that the Government may take in attempting to stop proxy bombing, to stop the carrying of explosives from one place to another, and anything that could lead to the destruction of life, is to be welcomed on the opposition side of the House. We echo the words of the Opposition spokesman, who has said that it is strange that such Regulations have not been laid before today. That remark applies both to the present Government and to the previous Conservative Government. I see that the Minister is indicating that he is glad that the guilt is laid evenly on both sides of the House.
  Mr. James Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman has said that it is strange that these Regulations were not made earlier, but in my view it is strange that the Regulations are necessary. It is strange that so many cars should be left unattended, unlocked and easily accessible. Is there any special reason for this?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) knows that it is not the usual practice for anyone to leave someone in charge of his vehicle. Cars are usually left unattended, and it would be most inconvenient if, when one parked a car, one had to leave someone,
  "not below the age of fifteen years"
  in attendance of it.
  Mr. Dempsey: But why are vehicles left unlocked?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made the reason clear. It used to be the custom in Northern Ireland that people generally did not lock their cars, because there was law and order in the community. I am not saying whether

  749
  that was a good or bad custom. We do not have law and order in the community now, and therefore we need these Regulations.
  I am glad that in laying the Regulations the Government are giving time for those who have to immobilise their cars to be able to do so. Will the Minister assure us that the Regulations will have the widest possible publicity, so that people are forewarned and know the Regulations and conditions.
  There are many places in Northern Ireland where people cannot live without the use of a car. I suppose that the controlled zones will still be in operation. I ask the Minister to note that many of the signs in those areas have become dilapidated. In fact, many of them have been used for displaying other posters, including election posters. Sometimes people who go to those areas are not sure whether they are controlled zones or not. They leave their cars and when they return they discover that they have either been blown up or dragged away.
  I ask the Minister why the Regulations are limited. I understand that they will not affect
  "a public service vehicle seating more than twelve persons in addition to the driver."
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that many buses seat up to 15 people. Indeed, some seat 20. Those vehicles are most suitable for transporting explosives. Many bombs are placed in churns, and it would be easier to put a churn in a minibus than into the boot of a car. I can understand the Regulations not affecting a bus that seats more than 25 people, but there are many smaller buses that would be ideal for terrorists to steal in order to transport bombs.
  Do the Regulations cover motor vehicles on private property? I understand that if a motor vehicle is parked on private property it does not come within the Regulations, because Regulation 4(a) refers to
  "a vehicle which is left in locked premises".
  I am sure the Minister is aware that in garages where vehicles are being repaired it would be difficult to keep to the letter of the Regulations. I should like to see the spirit of the Regulations
  750
  kept even with regard to vehicles in garages, but it will be very difficult to apply them to the letter in that respect. Perhaps the Minister will look into this point.
  Regulation 3(1) contains the words
  "the proof whereof shall lie on him."
  I understand that the onus is upon the person concerned. Anything that throws the onus of an offence on the person concerned needs to be considered seriously. I know that under certain firearms offences and the Emergency Regulations the onus of proof is not upon the Crown; it is upon the person who is accused of the offence. I draw the Minister's attention to that provision, because it is a departure from common law principles. We are in an emergency situation, but hon. Members must remember that the onus of proof has been placed upon the people concerned.
  The Minister will no doubt agree that if Republicans plan a job the hijacked car is usually from a Republican area. If a job is planned by a Protestant paramilitary group, the car is usually, but not always, hijacked from a Protestant area. Everyone agrees that the present spate of bombing is definitely being done by the Provisional IRA. Therefore, will it not be hard to implement these Regulations in areas where there is not normal policing?
  Does the Minister consider that the Army should be deployed in these areas, with the task of looking at parked cars and ensuring that they fulfil these Regulations? It would not be practical to say that this is a job for the police, because there are areas in which the police cannot check cars. The present spate of explosions is definitely coming from the Provisional IRA and it is the areas that they frequent that must be kept under strict police scrutiny.
  We welcome these Regulations in the fight against terrorism. We trust that the people of Northern Ireland will become acquainted with them by a good publicity campaign from the Government. We hope that the people of Northern Ireland will be able to keep to them. If, by intoducing these Regulations, we save lives, we shall have accomplished something that will be beneficial to all sections of the community.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Although I have an inherent objection to Emergency Regulations of any description, I fully understand the intention which lies behind these Regulations. It is an attempt to prevent explosions, and if it is successful it could lead to the saving of innocent lives and the further protection of property in Northern Ireland. From that standpoint I certainly have no objections to the Regulations. Indeed, I believe that they may be overdue.
  I apologise to the Minister for being absent and unable to hear his opening remarks. However, can he give any indication of how many cars have been hijacked in recent years because of the negligence of their owners? I believe that the RUC would have that record in Northern Ireland. The greatest danger about cars is not the car which is found on the street unattended but the car which is hijacked. Within the last hour I have heard from Northern Ireland that another car bomb has exploded in the middle of Royal Avenue outside the Grand Central Hotel. I am not sure whether the car was driven by an IRA man or by a proxy driver.
  I have always regarded those who make use of proxy bombs—persons who hijack cars and force the drivers to take the bombs to their destinations—as despicable cowards for not driving the bombs themselves but forcing innocent persons to take them to their destinations.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: And usually holding hostages.
  Mr. Fitt: And usually holding hostages as well, yes. I regard such people as despicable cowards, and I should like that message to be conveyed to them.
  I have no doubt that whoever was responsible for the assembling of the bomb which went off this evening, for the hijacking of the car and making certain that it got to its destination in Royal Avenue was not unaware of the debate which took place this afternoon—the debate on hanging—and the debate which is to follow this one on the emergency provisions. I suppose that the IRA would regard it as an act of defiance. Had the bomb gone off at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock this afternoon, they might have hoped that it would influence the vote which took
  752
  place earlier. That is the mentality of the people with whom we are dealing.
  These Regulations, if we use the police and the security forces to enforce them, will involve a big increase in manpower. The police will have another onerous duty thrust upon them. Perhaps the Army will also be used to enforce the carrying out of these Regulations. A great deal of inconvenience will be caused to people in Northern Ireland. However, we are not living in a normal society. There is a war atmosphere in Northern Ireland. I am sure that people right across the political board in Northern Ireland will at least understand the necessity for the introduction of these Regulations. I certainly give my wholehearted support to their introduction.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: I do not want to be churlish or argumentative about the Regulations. However, there is a tendency to look at these measures and to assume that there is nothing controversial in them and that, in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland, this is what we must do. While I sympathise with that view, I think we must be critical of these Regulations and see whether we can learn anything from them.
  The large bulk of the population in Northern Ireland have for seven years lived in conditions which people in other parts of the kingdom have not experienced. They have tried to behave in a normal fashion, but they have had to forgo some of the basic things which make modern life pleasant. They have forgone the pleasure of driving to the shops to do their shopping, to visit the doctor and to perform other basic services. We are now about to impose something further upon them.
  This would have been an excellent idea if it had been implemented three or four years ago, and I think that it is desirable even now. I believe that all hon. Members have sympathy with the objective of the Regulations.
  The motor car was and probably still is a major item of equipment in the terrorist's armoury. However, we must bear in mind that the IRA and other terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have always been pushing back the threshold in

  753
  terms of terrorist techniques in the violence which they are waging upon us. Undoubtedly the development of the car bomb was a major weapon for terrorists throughout the world. The car bomb was developed three years ago and its effects can be seen on every street corner and main shopping centre in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that Royal Avenue has been blasted again.
  I suggest that we should have been considering this measure when the IRA was in the process of developing the car bomb. Again, however, we appear to be reacting after the event, and this time reacting so far after the event that it might have very little meaning.
  As I said in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill yesterday, it was a great comfort to anyone from Northern Ireland who has lived with terrorism for seven years to see the security forces in Great Britain last weekend being one step ahead of the IRA. For the first time in seven year the security forces seized the initiative. They had forward plans, they had taken action and they were able to nip a terrorist activity in the bud. That was the first time in seven years that the security forces had seized the initiative.
  These Regulations are not seizing the initiative. Undoubtedly they will help the police in the control of crime generally and reduce the number of car bombings, but this is not seizing the initiative because it is too late.
  It could be argued that the car bomb as we have known it is now outmoded. The IRA is probably already coming up with something else. Last weekend the IRA destroyed the last major store in my constituency with another device. The gunmen appear to have perfected the incendiary bomb. With such a bomb they burned down a store worth £2 million and Lurgan has no shopping centre left.
  Instead of Regulations restricting people doing their shopping in a normal way, I should prefer an Order which sought to tackle the next stage in the IRA's campaign. We are merely imposing a further penalty on an already penalised law-abiding community. This is a victory not for us but for the IRA.
  754
  We have been forced to inflict a further penalty on a law-abiding community. Who will benefit from that?
  We are asking the car-owning section of the community, which is least able to bear the cost, to take certain action. We are told that most cars from 1972 onwards will already meet the requirements in the Regulations. However, it is the family man with the small car, perhaps made in the 1960s, who is already suffering the burden of rates, petrol increases and maintenance costs and who requires his car for many essential basic functions, who will have to bear the extra cost of fixing these devices.
  I hope that thought is being given to advising the do-it-yourself motorist on how he can immobilise his car. It is not just a matter of removing the rotor arm, because the terrorist will carry a rotor arm with him. I hope that a cheap means can be found and that advice can be given to the average family man on how he can do it.
  It must be admitted that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the Regulations. Mention has already been made of the extra burden on the police. When one comes across a locked car which apparently meets all the requirements, how does one decide that it has in fact been immobilised and that it has a device which locks the steering or cuts off the engine? I spoke to a policeman today who told me that he was all for the Regulations but did not know how he would enforce them. Will the police or traffic wardens do the job, or will extra security patrols do it? It will be very difficult, and many people will be needed.
  Under the Regulations, what is meant by "slightly open" in relation to the window of a motor vehicle? If a difference of fractions of an inch means six months in gaol or a fine of £400, "slightly open" will be a very debatable matter. It may depend on whether one is leaving one child or two in the car. On a very hot day conditions in the car may be very different if the window is an eighth of an inch open instead of half an inch or an inch. If the window is left open at all, is not the car exposed to the thief and the terrorist attacker?
  Apparently, one can leave the car open and not immobilise it if one has a

  755
  "reasonable excuse". What is a "reasonable excuse"?
  Milk vans, other delivery vans and commercial vehicles are excluded, provided that the driver is in the immediate vicinity and in sight of the vehicle. When my milkman comes to my house he is only 20 or 30 yards from the road, because of the drive and the level of the road compared with that of the house, but he does not have sight of his van. Is it regarded as being in the immediate vicinity? If he goes next door and leaves the van where it is, is it still in the immediate vicinity even though he probably cannot see it? What happens if he goes to a third house? Where does it end?
  It is the milk van and the commercial vehicle that the IRA will use. When IRA men have penetrated the security barriers recently they have done it not with a private car but by taking a commercial vehicle and using it to camouflage their bomb. By excluding that vehicle from the Regulations we are leaving the gate open. The vehicle could be left without being immobilised and the terrorist could steal it without difficulty.
  I know that there are problems here. All I am saying is that we should be careful to see that we are not reacting so long after the event that our action is no longer meaningful, and that we are not inflicting more harm on the law-abiding community to no great purpose.
  Having been critical, I shall try to convince my constituents that the Regulations are necessary, but we must remember that this is a time of serious economic restraint in Northern Ireland and that we are imposing a burden on the motorists who are least able to bear the extra cost.
  A few hours ago the Home Secretary said that he did not wish to have a deterrent which would break in his hand. I should hate to think that tonight we were introducing a deterrent which would break in our hands. Can we enforce the Regulations in Republican areas? Can we check that vehicles in those areas are immobilised? Can we insist that in Newry, Newtown Hamilton, Keady and Armagh, for example, the Regulations are strictly enforced, when people from the Republic can drive backwards and forwards without even being stopped? There is no control in that area. I am
  756
  not trying to make a cheap point, but we are inflicting this restriction on a law-abiding community when conditions enable it to be flouted.
  These are important matters. The large bulk of the community will accept the Regulations, but only if they see the law being enforced impartially. I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: It is wrong to criticise the Government or the previous Government for not introducing the Regulations before. The responsibility is on all of us to moot whatever ideas are sensible for the safeguarding of life and property in the Province. I think that the Regulations have only now been suggested to the Government, who have rightly put this draft before the House. They are not perfect. They are another burden on the law-abiding people of the Province.
  We cannot expect these Regulations to put an end to bombings by proxy, nor can we envisage that they will be enforced by the police and the security forces right throughout the Province. All they can do is to bring to the attention of the people that they must secure their cars and deter those who might attempt to take away motor vehicles. On many occasions, as with the proxy bomb tonight in Royal Avenue, Belfast, the terrorists take a vehicle which will not cause suspicion in the minds of the security forces. In tonight's case I think it was a Post Office van. That is obviously the sort of vehicle that the terrorists like to use. On the occasions when they hijack cars they do not always select cars which are locked and stationary but take those which are moving in their area.
  A valid point which arises from the debate is the question of the burden of proof. The law rightly recognises that normally the onus is on the prosecution to establish proof, but these Regulations shift the onus to the defendant. How can a citizen who is charged satisfy the burden of proof if he locks his car and a terrorist comes along and uses another key to open the door, gets into the car and drives it away? How can the owner prove that he locked it? That is the point that worries me. I do not know whether the Government have thought out these matters fully, but that is a worrying feature. Many people could be faced

  757
  with the prospect of prosecution and found guilty when they are totally innocent. That is a matter to which the Minister might direct his attention.
  Having made those comments, I welcome anything that will help to bring back some peace to Northern Ireland. I do not want to engage in any nit-picking in discussing these Regulations.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In ordinary circumstances the Regulations would be highly objectionable, because they make it a crime to endanger one's own property. Normally, the sanction against those who fail to secure their cars properly is that their failure increases the risk of the cars being lost, and, in due course, increases the insurance premium. However, in this instance there is the decisive consideration that it is not the interests of the owner of the car which is the basis of the crime but the fact that by being careless of his own property he is endangering third parties. It is that consideration which entitles us to make criminal his carelessness with his own property.
  A point which is very much a matter of presentation, and which I stress in the presence of the Minister, has arisen from a number of speeches, namely, that at best the Regulations can have only a partial effect upon the use of cars in terrorist activities. It will undoubtedly make the stealing of cars for terrorist purposes somewhat less frequent than might otherwise be the case. It will impose a limitation or a delay, and to that extent it will be beneficial, but I suggest that it will be unwise for the Government to promote the publicity for this new law in terms that suggest that a tremendous blow will thereby be struck against terrorism by the ordinary citizen. The Regulations are very modest in their possible effect, and it is always bad propaganda and bad publicity to exaggerate the significance and effect of what one is doing.
  I stress that the more because my only other point is to invite the Minister to go into more particulars of the methods to be adopted to bring the new requirements to the attention of the public. It occurs to me that the Minister could arrange, in all car parks, for the display of notices with the full particulars of the
  758
  requirements as a matter of course. In addition, the display of notices would be appropriate in streets and areas where cars are normally parked.
  This applies equally to the man who leaves his own car in his own drive or garage. Nevertheless, the authorities can get at those activities only by the use of other forms of publicity. I suggest that it will be damaging to whatever benefit can be got out of this exercise if the citizen in breach of the Regulations can with some plausibility argue that such a matter has not effectively been drawn to his attention and that he has not been reminded of the Regulations relating to circumstances in which he is likely to leave a car unattended.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to cover those two points regarding publicity to be given to the new law.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Concannon: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  I should like first to thank hon. Members for the general welcome given to the Regulations. We all appreciate that these provisions arise only in emergency conditions under the relevant legislation.
  I was asked who will be responsible for policing the Regulations. This will be carried out under the emergency provisions legislation covering the activities of Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that we have not taken this action without full consultation with those concerned. However, I assure the House that the authorities involved look forward to the enactment of this legislation.
  I was asked about publicity. We shall, of course, be giving full publicity to these provisions, although we are not holding them out as a panacea for all ills.
  Mr. Fitt: The provisions will lessen the civil and democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland. Would it be an expensive matter for the motor taxation authorities in Northern Ireland to send out publicity documents relating to these Regulations in order to inform the public of the situation?
  Mr. Concannon: We shall examine any suggestion in this respect. We have a period of three months and two weeks before the immobilisation procedure

  759
  comes into force. We have already begun our publicity campaign through the Press and we shall also use television and other forms of communication in Northern Ireland.
  We must try to keep these matters in perspective. I repeat that these steps have been taken only after consultation with the relevant bodies. It would be wrong to say that there is no opinion to the contrary. Certainly the haulage contractors and the trade unions have put on record their dislike for certain aspects of the Regulations. We have to meet these people and persuade them to accept our views. We have discussed this with the police and the Army.
  In 1972, 9,659 vehicles were stolen in Northern Ireland. In the following year the number had been reduced to 5,496. In 1974, the figure was 5,700 and up to 31st October this year the figure is 6,674. We could not bring in these Regulations unless we had public support in Northern Ireland. The time is now opportune. We hope that as many people as possible will agree with us on this matter.
  I was asked how many cars had been stolen on the roads of Northern Ireland. The identification procedures speed up protection and work quickly. This is a security matter, and I do not want to go into it. I shall certainly take on board the point about controlled zones. I have been trying to deal with other signs for those zones but have had little success so far.
  We have to draw the line somewhere in relation to the point made about the 12-seater minibus. We have always to bear in mind the security situation. The courts will have to decide in many instances, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, and will have to interpret certain of these actions. This is not a panacea. I thank hon. Members for giving the Regulations the response that they have.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Perhaps the Minister will write to me and deal with the situation in which a person has left a car locked and secure. Anyone could tamper with a vehicle that has been left unattended. The window could be forced open for the purpose of stealing from the car, or the thief could attempt to drive
  760
  the car away. Someone could use a key to open the car door and then be unable to move the car. What about the unfortunate owner of the vehicle? He could well be prosecuted. He would have no defence. Will the Minister examine that aspect?
  Mr. Concannon: The onus of proof is on the car owner who parks the car, Regulation 3(1)(d) states that the steering mechanism has to be immobilised and that the car itself has to be immobilised. The onus of proof is on the car owner. The interpretation will have to be left to the courts. I know how well solicitors and others tackle these problems in Northern Ireland. We must convince the general public of the need for this measure and demonstrate to them that their cars should be locked up while unattended. If we can, we shall be doing a great service to the car owner and to the population in Northern Ireland. As a result, we hope that there will be fewer bombs and less slaughter.
  I know that there will be problems. These Regulations will not solve all the problems in one fell swoop, but they will make the life of these thugs and terrorists more difficult and that of our security forces easier.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  8.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
  That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.
  We are seeking the approval of the House for the renewal of the temporary provisions contained in three Acts—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974.

  761
  The 1973 Act contains powers for dealing with terrorism. The provisions affect the mode of trial—for example, the absence of juries for the trial of scheduled offences; evidence—for example, the reversal of the onus of proof over the possession of firearms; and the powers of the police and the Army—for example, powers of arrest and search. The Act also incorporates the provisions for detention which were previously enacted by Order. Most of the provisions have continued unchanged since 1973. Some provisions were amended and others added by the 1975 amendment Act. In particular, the detention provisions were significantly recast following the report of the Gardiner Committee.
  The Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 provides a temporary power for the Secretary of State to give a direction for a young person to be kept in remand in prison to prevent his escape or to ensure his safety or the safety of others. The provision is necessary, as facilities outside prison in Northern Ireland were not designed to contain young persons who are determined to escape, particularly if outside help is forthcoming. There was a deal of that at the time the Act was passed. Although I have not made a direction since this provision was last renewed, I would not wish, yet, to see the power lapse. I understand that the courts are providing for far more remand to prison under this legislation.
  The Order provides that the temporary provisions in all these Acts should continue in force for a further six months, from 25th January 1976.
  We still need emergency powers in Northern Ireland. Violence continues, although, as I have said on many occasions, its nature has changed. We must, however, recognise the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. Paramilitary organisations of various shades are a fact of life there, and these terrorist brigades and battalions, with quasi-military command structures and trappings. Their real significance, however, lies in the fact that nearly 1,400 people have been killed in Northern Ireland since 1969; that over £130 million compensation has been paid in respect of bombing attacks which, although much reduced in 1975, are still commonplace; that sectarian murders are rife, and that young
  762
  children are killed on the streets. Not only is Northern Ireland different politically from the rest of the United Kingdom; it is very different indeed in the nature of its violence.
  I come now to detention. I have explained on several occasions my reasons for releasing the remaining detainees. From the outset, detention has been a real and continuing cause of resentment, particularly in the minority community. It was a fertile ground for recruitment to the paramilitary organisations. Although detention played an important part in dealing with organised violence and breaking up the paramilitary structures, it did not end violence. From June 1973 until January 1975, there were never fewer than 500 persons detained. All of us know the scale and horror of the violence that continued during that period.
  Let us not forget, either, that releases from detention are nothing new, whether by the Secretary of State or, until August, by the Commissioners. That is because it is implicit in the legislation. Even more implicit is the fact that detention is for a short period. A total of 809 persons were released in 1972, 208 in 1973 and 361 in 1974. Some of those released have returned to active terrorism, but, of over 2,000 persons released since August 1971, only just over 100 have subsequently been charged with terrorist-type offences.
  I discovered on reading Hansard recently that in a debate on 25th November 1971, after a visit to Long Kesh and Crumlin Road, and only a few months after internment, as it was, had been introduced, I said:
  "I feel that the key is internment. Whoever one talks to in the minority group in Ulster, one can be in no doubt that since internment the political situation has changed radically. Internment has hardened attitudes."—[Official Report, 25th November 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1661.]
  I went on to say that internment was a turning point in Northern Ireland and that, whatever happened, things would never be the same again until that aspect had been dealt with.
  I have felt that all along. I have never, in all these years, however, whether on the passage of legislation or signing interim custody orders myself—as I did last year—burked the issue that in some

  763
  circumstances detention is the only course available to us. If there is a recurrence of widespread violence I would not hesitate to use the powers of detention again, but the responsibility would then lie clearly on the men of violence. The chance has been given, internment and detention have been used politically in Northern Ireland. The responsibility lies now not here at Westminster or at Stormont but with the people concerned.
  In Northern Ireland too many people are guilty of double thinking. They appear to believe that some crimes can be justified—indeed, that they are not crimes at all—because they are committed with some allegedly political motive in mind. It is only necessary to list some of the crimes which have been committed to be disabused of the notion of any political motive. That is why I announced to the House that I would make a start next year with the phasing out of special category status for new entrants.
  Earlier this year a child of 7, herding animals in a country lane, was blown to pieces by a land mine planted by the Provisional IRA. Recently the Provisional IRA was responsible also for the murder of a child of 6, shot dead in a wild burst of gunfire aimed at her father. In July, three men driving home from a dog show in the Republic were stopped on the open road and motivelessly murdered. Also in July this year, the Miami Show-band were ambushed and three out of the four of them shot and killed by members of the UVF armed with sub-machine-guns. In August, a council workman—a Protestant who volunteered to assist in the repair of bomb-damaged homes in the Catholic Lower Falls—was beaten to death by a Provisional IRA gang. So violence continues in Northern Ireland.
  Hon. Members will know of the successes that have been achieved this year by the security forces—the police assisted by the Army. Good progress in combating the evils of sectarian murder and gangsterism has been made on both sides of the community. Many people are being charged and brought before the courts for serious crimes. A total of 149 people were charged in November alone.
  Charges for murder and attempted murder have shown a dramatic increase.
  764
  This year, 135 people have been charged with murder, compared with 75 in the whole of 1974. In the last two months alone, some 40 people have been charged with murder; only a dozen or so were charged over the same period last year. No fewer than 318 travelling gunmen have been apprehended and charged, and many of these people must be regarded as potential murderers. What I should emphasise to the House is that the number of convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland is 2,260 this year, compared with 1,748 at the end of last year—an increase of 512. More people are going to prison—they are not in detention; they have been convicted—and that is what the Government want to achieve.
  In the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitution in July 1974, the Government made it clear that nothing would transform the security situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support and co-operate with the police service. With the release of the remaining detainees, I have removed what has been seen as the most intractable obstacle to community support.
  Our aim now is to ensure that the police progressively assume full responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. The Army does a magnificent job in Northern Ireland. My praise must be unstinting for the way in which our troops carry out their most difficult rôle. But, however well they do their work, the Army in the longer-term is no substitute for the police. It has always been the aim of the Government to achieve a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in the commitment of the Army as the police assume once more their full r·le. This is still the aim and policy of the Government, and our actions, whether they be the moves that I announced in September 1974 to strengthen the police, or the ending of detention and the emphasis on proceeding through the courts, have been taken to this end.
  The RUC is the principal guardian of law and order in Northern Ireland. It is the duty of the RUC to enforce the law. The Government support the police in every way they can, but the RUC is as independent of political interference as any police force in Great Britain. In his operational judgments, the Chief Constable is independent of me. His

  765
  responsibilities are derived from the law, and he is answerable to the law. He is an agent neither of central nor of local government. Sometimes, in the discussions which take place and are taking place now, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by "control of the police". The Chief Constable is an agent neither of central nor of local government. As I have said before in this House, that is the way that it should be and the way that it must continue to be. There can be no question of any Government's putting pressure on the Chief Constable to act other than according to his own judgments in the discharge of his own responsibilities.
  There has been much speculation, gossip and mischievous rumour about the Chief Constable of the RUC. Some of the more malicious rumours have alleged that I have taken steps to remove the present Chief Constable from office, and that I have been motivated to take these unspecified steps because he has been obstructive.
  First, let me defend the person who is unable to defend himself. Sir Jamie Flanagan, the Chief Constable, has always carried out his duties efficiently—I use the word advisedly, as it is only on the ground of inefficiency that I could require the Chief Constable to retire, by law. He has co-operated to the full in policies that I have initiated. There has been no dispute. There is no question of deals.
  I see in the newspapers a report that starts off correctly enough by saying:
  "The Northern Ireland Office is blamed by politicians for exerting undue pressure on the police authority."
  That is correct, but the writer does not know what he is talking about, because he goes on:
  "Earlier this year the Chief Constable refused to implement certain points widely supposed to form part of a cease-fire deal with the Provisional IRA."
  That is rubbish.
  "He is reported to have rowed with Mr. Rees over a suggestion that certain PIRA or Sinn Fein leaders should be issued with firearm certificates or that the incident centres should be allowed to deal with local crimes."
  That is even bigger balderdash. It causes the Chief Constable and me great amusement at the way this sort of rubbish
  766
  percolates round and gets into the newspapers.
  "Sir Jamie also opposed the scaling down of troops in Republican areas as their presence is necessary to enable the RUC to carry out its already limited functions in the Roman Catholic ghettoes"—
  the number of troops is the same—
  "… and made it quite clear to me that there would be no immunity from arrest for Provisional leaders like Seamus Twomey, their chief of staff."
  That is a curious twist to the story. Earlier this year, it was the other way round.
  At the time, what people who ought to have known better misunderstood was that under the law I decide who shall be ICO-ed. I do not decide who shall be arrested. No one in the security forces is under any illusion about that, and never has been. That sort of rubbish does not cause alarm and despondency amongst the security forces; it causes a great deal of laughter at functions of the security forces, which I attend nearly every night of the week.
  What sort of place is this that this sort of rubbish can go on day after day? Mr. Paddy Devlin, of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, has been speaking up in favour of the Chief Constable, so I got hold of a newspaper of two years ago and found that Mr. Devlin then said that Mr. Flanagan's appointment was disastrous. Mr. Devlin said that the new Chief Constable had been a part of the police hierarchy when all the deficiencies of the force were manifest and that he had never raised his voice in protest or made an impression on any incident in which he was involved. He said that the Chief Constable did not possess the characteristics needed to pilot the changes so desperately needed in the RUC.
  So in the last two years there has been a transmogrification in Sir Jamie Flanagan. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred to his appointment as outrageous. He said the British Government had made no attempt whatever to consult the new Assembly members on the matter. He said he would raise the matter at the next meeting of the Assembly.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman should know that I repudiated that Press statement, and I have told Sir Jamie Flanagan that I have made no comment- on his appointment.
  Mr. Rees: I am pleased to withdraw what I said. Much nonsense is being talked. It seems to me that we have been both treated the same way. The hon. Member complains about a report in the Press and I am complaining about reports in the Press. In this case we are treated equally, but things are sometimes different.
  The statutory position of the appointment of the Chief Constable is quite clear. He is appointed by the police authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, in the same way as are chief constables in Great Britain. The police authority has advertised the post in the same way as in Great Britain and has sought professional advice from the Inspectorate through my Department, in the same way as in Great Britain. This is still awaited.
  When the present Chief Constable was appointed he expressed a wish that his tenure should not continue beyond 1975. I understand that the Police Authority has asked him to continue in office until a successor has been appointed, and that he has agreed. That is the position. It is quite clear, and I have no role to play in this. I would not want one. It is vitally important that the police should be outside political control, because at one time there was general talk in Northern Ireland that the position was different. It is important that there should be no illusion in talking about the future Government in Northern Ireland. There is some concern and fear among the police about what might happen in the future. It is important that I should stick to the rules, and I do.
  Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I speak not as someone who has made any comment on this matter but as someone who has a high regard for Sir James Flanagan. I believe that he is the man for the job. If he is fit and able to do the job, could he not be asked if he would be prepared to accept an extension of his term of office?
  Mr. Rees: It is not for me to ask. I am sure that the Police Authority will be told what people have said. It must be a matter for the Authority. My function does not enter into the matter, and it would be wrong for me to try to interfere.
  Mr. James Dempsey: This is an important point. I am a regular listener to Radio Ulster and I heard it report that my right hon. Friend was pressurising the Chief Constable to retire prematurely. I am glad to hear the statement that he has just made. I hope that he will make the situation clear to Radio Ulster.
  Mr. Rees: I have made my point clear, not for the first time. But once a rumour gets around it is difficult to stop it. If I believed half the things I heard about other people in Northern Ireland—but perhaps I had better keep them for my memoirs.
  I have spoken of the support for the security forces that is forthcoming from the community in Northern Ireland. For success the Government also need co-operation from outside the Province. As the House knows, I have maintained close contact with the Irish Government. The two Governments have a common interest in dealing with terrorism. Continual progress is being made in preventing the supply of explosives reaching terrorists. Co-operation between the police forces north and south of the border has never been closer.
  I am confident that the Irish Government are fully aware of the relevance of the border to violence against civilians and against members of the security forces in areas like Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Armagh. They know of the incidents in which shots have been fired across the border at members of the security forces, and of the times in which mines and booby traps have been left for our patrols in the North, with command wires and firing points in the Republic. They also know that terrorists have operated against us from bases in the South. I appreciate the efforts that the Government of the Republic are making to help us bring all this to an end.
  This co-operation is vitally important. I hear nothing but praise from the RUC for the co-operation it gets from the Garda in the South. Despite Press reports to the contrary, what I have said is the case. I have responsibility for many things, but I am glad to say that I do not have responsibility for the Press of Northern Ireland, let alone the Press of the rest of the country.

  769
  Law and order is only a part of the story, however. We have also done everything possible to ensure that grievances are remedied. In a society in which divisions between communities have been as sharp as in Northern Ireland, and have led to such distrust of the law and of the fairness of the State's activities, it is particularly necessary that the rights of the individual should be properly protected and that this should be seen on all sides to be so. Such an attitude is part of our heritage in Great Britain, but, unfortunately, it is not accepted generally in Northern Ireland.
  There is in Northern Ireland today a wide range of measures designed for the protection of human rights. Much had already been done before direct rule was imposed in 1972. I am thinking particularly of the establishment of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints, whose job it is to guard the citizen against cases of maladministration respectively by central and local government. I wish more people would use this machinery.
  The Conservative Government added further protection through the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which specifically outlaws discrimination in legislation or executive acts on either religious or political grounds. It also set up the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to review the adequacy of the law in preventing discrimination on these grounds.
  The present Government have taken matters further. We have followed the work done by our predecessors and have introduced the Fair Employment Bill, which will protect the citizen against discrimination in employment in the private sector as well as in the public domain. I know that there is disagreement on some aspects of this measure, and no doubt it will be aired in the House—early, I expect, in the new year.
  We have given the Human Rights Commission, under Lord Feather's chairmanship, all encouragement in its present far-ranging study to determine whether a Bill of Rights is desirable for Northern Ireland. I have also announced my intention to introduce an independent element into the procedure for investigating complaints against the police and I hope in the very near future to have the report
  770
  of the working party considering the matter. I shall then lay appropriate legislation before the House. I remind the House that the Gardiner Committee praised the procedures of the RUC with regard to complaints under the existing system. I list these measures simply to demonstrate that a great deal has been done over the last five years. Whatever complaints were being made four or five years ago, they can no longer be laid in Northern Ireland.
  Unquestionably, the dominant feature of this year has been the large number of interfactional and sectarian murders. My hon. Friends and I live with the statistics given to us at security meetings. Perhaps I should interpret these words for the House. I mean Catholic killing Catholic, as in the PIRA/OIRA feud, or Protestant killing Protestant, as in the case of the UVF/UDA feud. By sectarian murders, I mean the killing of a Catholic by a Protestant or of a Protestant by a Catholic. Sadly, and all too frequently, this has meant the callous murder of a workmate or of a member of some innocent family. Interfactional and sectarian murders have loomed larger than usual in the past year. Let me make it absolutely clear that the security forces have the fullest support from the Government in everything they have done to catch these people, who are sick in mind and are simply killing their fellow citizens for no purpose whatsoever.
  There are so many horrible things I remember. I think of the friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—Senator Paddy Wilson—who was killed two years ago. I think of what was done to him and what had happened to him when he was found. I think of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) coming to see me some months ago, telling me of a constituent, killed on the border, whose face had been obliterated so that his family would not recognise him in his coffin. It is sick. Political ideals of the past? No, it is pure bloody murder by people who have forgotten what they were doing in the first instance.
  There are some grounds for believing that the paramilitary organisations on both sides are beginning to realise that these killings bring nothing but discredit to them and that they should stop. The

  771
  feud in West Belfast did no good to any of them.
  It would be a major step forward if these paramilitary organisations were willing to make a public declaration of intent that interfactional and sectarian murders would stop. It is public declarations of intend of this kind that could mark the beginning of a real transformation. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not implying for a moment that they should turn to other forms of crime. I am determined that crimes of any kind should be rigorously pursued through the courts. What I would say is that there is real scope for the energies within these organisations to be directed towards the political, economic and social progress that is so badly needed in Ulster.
  There is no doubt that in the early part of the year there was a significant falling off in violence from the Provisional IRA. As I told the House earlier in the year, a number of outrages then were committed by the IRSP, and these have subsequently been publicly admitted through the so-called National Liberation Army—one of its aliases. In the latter part of the year, the Provisionals have, in a number of areas, returned increasingly to acts of violence rather than follow a more constructive course, despite their saying in public that the time was coming when they would stand for elections in all parts of Ireland. Another bomb in Royal Avenue will greatly endear them to the Protestant population in East Belfast. It is the most curious form of electioneering that I have ever known, and it happens on both sides.
  If all, or even the majority, of the paramilitary organisations were prepared to make public declarations of intent of the kind I have indicated, the meaningless loss of life would diminish. The senseless killing of people who have every right to live, work and bring up their families in Ulster would stop. This killing has advanced no one's cause one iota. All that it does is to sentence to death a number of the very people whom the paramilitary organisations claim to be protecting. A murder on one side has meant, and will mean, a murder on the other. A bomb on one side will sprout either a bullet or a bomb on the other side, depending on the circum-
  772
  stances of the time. If the killing starts again, everyone will know clearly who is committing these mindless acts of violence. What I ask all the paramilitary organisations and fringe groups to remember is that the killing and wounding of innocent people is a crime against humanity, for which responsibility lies solely upon them.
  If the Provisionals return to violence on the scale of the period from 1972 to 1974 there will be an inevitable counter-reaction. If the Loyalist paramilitary organisations, some of which arose in response to the PIRA campaign, kill Catholics, then, equally, there will be a counter-reaction. In either case it is a senseless descent into criminality. They should think deeply about what I am saying. In this situation, one act of mindless violence could trigger off a chain reaction.
  It has been suggested that the problems in Ulster could be solved by saying that we would withdraw over a period of years. This is what the Provisionals mean when they ask for a declaration of intent. Indeed, it seems to be what one of the major parties in the Republic is also saying. I am firmly of the view that any such statement would be desperately dangerous. I am certain that any such statement would lead to an immediate outburst of violence on a scale that we have not yet seen. It would be motivated by fear on both sides. If such a declaration—which sounds so easy to some—were made in the morning, I would not give twopence for what would happen in Belfast before the afternoon was out.
  It is easy to make these statements from a distance, but responsibility lies in the House, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I am equally certain that outrages in this country, and the killing of soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland, do nothing whatsoever to bring any solution nearer.
  I believe that progress in Northern Ireland must be made by the Ulster people. The simple fact is that there is a Protestant majority in Ulster and a large Catholic minority. It is only when the politicians and the people in both these communities declare their intention to live and work together that real progress will be made. What are needed

  773
  also, as I said earlier, are declarations of intent by the paramilitary organisations.
  This debate has been about security and, increasingly, about criminality. We must return very soon to the constitutional and political problems of Northern Ireland, and all I would say about this tonight is that the Government will be putting their views before this House early in the new year. Meanwhile, we still need to renew the temporary provisions in the Acts that I described at the beginning of my speech.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: The House must fully support the Secretary of State in his vehement denunciation of the latest outrages which have taken place today and during the past few months. As he said, emergency powers are still needed in Northern Ireland. It is horrifying to think that 1,400 people have been killed since 1969 in circumstances of great brutality. The right hon. Gentleman rightly described those events as foul murders which should not be glorified in any political sense.
  I support what the Secretary of State said about withdrawal. The Opposition take the same view as the Government on this matter. We believe that the Armed Forces must remain in strength in support of the civil power until normal policing can be restored throughout the Province. Those are the words of the Secretary of State which the Conservative Party also has been using during the last few months. We believe that it would be dishonourable for a lawful, democratic Government to shirk their duty to uphold the law in all parts of the United Kingdom. There can be no question of the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from any part of the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State has given a full explanation of the Order. I shall not detain the House for long because hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies wish to speak on their special aspects of this tragic problem.
  We support the Order, just as we supported the three principal Acts as amended. I shall none the less make a few comments in addition to what I said on that occasion. These powers are no doubt essential to enable the Secretary of
  774
  State to restore order and uphold the rule of law, but, as I said on Third Reading, it is the way in which the powers are operated that is really important.
  The Secretary of State referred to detention, and he is aware that one of my reasons for opposing the release of detainees from detention in the past few weeks was that there might be difficulties in getting evidence for convictions. I know that the Secretary of State passionately believed that detention without trial should come to an end. I hope he will accept that there are others who were apprehensive about what might happen if he took this action. I shall say no more about that except to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a Written Answer to one of my hon. Friends he referred to the number of internees and detainees released since August, 1971. This was in a Written Answer of 9th December. Of those persons, 108 have subsequently been charged with terrorist-type offences. That is 5 per cent. I simply note that. It may prove important in the future.
  The Secretary of State also said that, now that detention has been brought to an end, the responsibility lies with the people of Northern Ireland in the future, and he mentioned in particular the minority community. I agree with what he says, but it lies with Her Majesty's Government as well, and I am sure that they accept the responsibility. It should not in any way be thought that that is not the case.
  I turn now to one or two other points concerning the question of getting convictions. This should be further examined. The Government have in recent weeks given us very substantial figures of offenders being dealt with by the courts. On 4th December the Secretary of State mentioned a figure of 1,260 going through the courts this year. That is a very big figure indeed. I assume that this includes all types of terrorist activity.
  On 10th December there was a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to the effect that 207 directions were issued for the prosecution of persons alleged to belong to the Irish Republican Army between 8th August 1973 and 30th November 1975.

  775
  The end of the answer was that following these directions, prosecutions had been completed in respect of 187 persons.
  If the Minister of State is to say anything in winding up, will he tell the House how many people during that period were convicted of that offence and how many were charged with that offence alone, as distinct from any other terrorist-type offence? I think that that is important. It has bothered many people.
  Now that legal opinion appears to reject the procedures employed in the South of Ireland, where evidence of membership given by a senior police officer is admitted—this has been debated several times in the House—what will now be done about the numbers of persons who admit that they are members of an illegal organisation? I believe that many of those released from detention have admitted their membership. What is to happen now? I asked the Minister of State this question on 8th December.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not wish to help anybody as to ways of avoiding a court charge arising from admitted membership. On the question of self-identification within the prisons—whether a person has been convicted or otherwise—I am advised very strongly that this is not regarded as firm evidence of membership. The element of time comes into it. It is possible to say that someone is a member of a political party here and then to find that membership has lapsed, or something of that kind. It is very difficult to get evidence of that nature. Having said that, I should be very happy to talk about it to the hon. Gentleman, because I have looked at it.
  Mr. Neave: I should like to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State on another occasion because there are members of the public who are concerned that persons released from detention or persons who are abroad at present are admitting membership of organisations which are proscribed. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said and I should like to talk to him further about what should be done about this matter.
  I should like to ask one or two further questions. Is the Secretary of State satisfied—I raised this matter in July on Third Reading of one of the three principal Acts
  776
  —that the intimidation of witnesses to which he referred in July is no longer a serious problem? Is the situation improving in any way? This is important in regard to future enforcement of the law in Northern Ireland. What steps are being taken to protect witnesses in regard to their security in giving evidence and to the disclosure of their addresses? Has there been any further progress on that point? We attach considerable importance to this, because if it is right to say that detention should end and that the due legal process through the courts is correct the question of evidence and witnesses is obviously extremely important.
  On the same point about proscribed organisations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the strengthening of Section 9 of the principal Act and possibly making membership of a proscribed organisation part of the list of scheduled offences in the Act? That might be a way of strengthening the position.
  I have two more points to make which are fairly important. The Opposition would like to have further conversations on the question of the offence of terrorism which was recommended by the Gardiner Committee. This matter was debated in the House earlier today, but it was a view that we urged on the Government during the debates on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In the light of additional opinion from the first annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, of which the Government may be aware, would the Secretary of State be prepared to have discussions on the question whether an offence of terrorism could be created in Northern Ireland?
  I was delighted, as we all were, by the great tribute which the Secretary of State paid to the Army. I hope that progress will be made in South Armagh in arresting those responsible for the recent murders. Will the Secretary of State say what progress is being made in finding the people who carried them out?
  My final comments are about Sir Jamie Flanagan, who has made a deep impression on hon. Members on all sides of the House during their visits to Northern Ireland. Those who reside there and represent Northern Ireland constituencies certainly appear to be of that view. However, in view of the comments that have

  777
  been made in the Press, it might be wise for the Police Authority, as the Secretary of State says, not only to note what has been said but perhaps to issue some statement of its own. This matter is arousing considerable comment.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): It has done so.
  Mr. Neave: I have not seen that. I am glad to hear it. We have been very much impressed by Sir Jamie's success as Chief Constable and we are glad to note what the Secretary of State said about that.
  Having regard to all the points which the Secretary of State has already made, with which I agree, we support the Order.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are some books in which the footnotes occupy almost as large a part of the pages as the text. I was reminded of them during that long passage in the speech of the Secretary of State—certainly it was the most vigorous and eloquent passage in his speech—in which he repudiated all sorts of untruth and self-evident untruth which he found to be in circulation. Before I come to the Order and to his remarks about it, I should like to offer him two reflections upon that spirited apologia to which we listened.
  The first is that it is nothing exceptional for acts which have nothing to do with a Minister of the Crown to be personalised in public presentation, though no doubt it is more tiresome in the circumstances of Northern Ireland when this happens. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, I remember that, when I was Minister of Health and certain disciplinary procedures against practitioners and others in the National Health Service took place, procedures in which the Minister took no part and of which he could have no knowledge, I was constantly astonished to read in the newspapers such headlines as "Minister swoops on Kentish dentist", when I never knew that there was a Kentish dentist involved in anything. It all had to be personalised. So perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not fall, as sometimes happens in Northern Ireland, into the idea that we are the only sufferers from what is a more general tendency. However, I agree that it can be more dangerous and more productive of
  778
  misunderstanding in Northern Ireland than elsewhere.
  My other reflection arose from the word "politician" which the right hon. Gentleman used when referring to those who discussed so eagerly and gave such currency to many of the absurd, exaggerated or distorted rumours. This leads me to say—I am making no personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not without importance—that above the level of district council the elected politicians of Northern Ireland sit in this House—the people who bear political responsibility to the electorate of Northern Ireland are all 12 of them Members of this House. I often wish that the Press and others who seek information and views about what is going on in Northern Ireland would more often come to those who are responsible and are elected than to people who are not responsible and not elected. If that were done, it might be found that some of these rumours would be quashed earlier in their lifetime.
  From that footnote upon a larger footnote I come back to the Order itself. It is salutary, tiresome through it may be to those who arrange the business of the House, that these emergency provivisions have to be renewed every six months, for it forces the Government and the representatives of Northern Ireland—indeed, it forces the House so far as we can say that the House is present this evening—to review very seriously and acidly where they were six months ago, and where six months ago they thought they were going.
  I have been refreshing my memory of how the position appeared six short months ago when on 26th June the predecessor Order was debated. On that occasion the Secretary of State said:
  "There has been a significant reduction in incidents against the security forces and an overall reduction in terrorist incidents. This has exposed, or perhaps brought to the surface, much interfactional violence and violence between the communities in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 816.]
  We all wish that were as correct a description of the second half of 1975 as it was of the first half of 1975; but I am afraid that we have to record that in the second half of 1975 deliberate and murderous violence against the security forces—the police and the Army—and

  779
  against innocent members of the public—selected because they are innocent, just as they are selected by the terrorists here in Great Britain because they are innocent—has been a renewed feature of the scene. Although the interfactional and sectarian violence—the right hon. Gentleman regrets these stereotyped expressions as much as many of us do—has continued, it has been overlaid once again by the resumption of warfare against the security forces and against the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland. Moreover, in the second half of 1975 this has been accompanied by and linked with an extension of the warfare into Great Britain, directed against public opinion in this country and directed against this House.
  Before I come to a deduction from that change, I want to dwell briefly upon the two salient events which have occurred in the last six months. The first is the virtual ending of the so-called truce. It always was a so-called truce. When the Secretary of State was introducing the Order six months ago, the truce was still something to which he, at any rate, referred with some satisfaction. At that time too the incident centres were still regarded as performing a useful function.
  Now, to the relief of many of us, both those features have disappeared. At least I hope they have completely disappeared, because I am sure I am not alone in hoping that the dark side to the truce—namely, the placing of the IRA on the same plane as the Government through exchanges between representatives of the Government and of the IRA—has followed the incident centres, which gave rise to so much anxiety and interpretation or misinterpretation, and the so-called truce, which never was a truce, never ought to have been called a truce, was never meant to be a truce, into the limbo of forgotten things.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, who normally chooses his words extremely carefully, would agree that, whatever else it was, it was not a truce. That it was a so-called cease-fire I would accept.
  Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have the same objections to the term "cease-fire"; for ceasefire implies a transaction between two legitimate, legal, warring forces, and
  780
  carries with it the implication that the two forces which agree upon the ceasefire are somehow of the same kind and stand upon the same level. Therefore, although I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his substitution of the correct for the incorrect terminology, the argument and the considerations remain the same.
  That is one event of the last six months. Though it might appear superficially to be regrettable, it is to be welcomed, first because it has stripped away misunderstandings which might prevail outside Northern Ireland, and secondly because it has helped to dispel the notion that there has been, or that there still is, a deal between the Government and the IRA. The right hon. Gentleman knows how dangerous, in the most literal sense of the word, such a belief can be.
  That brings me to the second event of the last six months—the ending of detention. I do not believe that any hon. Members, certainly on this Bench, ever believed that the Secretary of State was ending detention as part of a deal with the IRA. It was bound to be said; it was bound to do harm that it was said; but, to those of us who knew what the right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of this evening, it was incredible and never acceptable.
  I think it is worth putting on record the fact that six months ago, when this policy, which has now been carried through, was at a much earlier stage, I said, speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as myself:
  "I am sure that the Secretary of State will be among the first to admit that he has received steady, though not uncritical, support … from right hon. and hon. Members on this bench. We have understood, too, what has been his aim and his strategy in the gradual unwinding of detention";
  and I described it as a
  "policy to which we give general support".
  There has been considerable misrepresentation, which would not have taken place if some had taken the trouble to listen to what is said in this Chamber, of the position on this matter of those who are elected to represent Northern Ireland and who bear responsibility to their electors.
  At any rate, with the ending of detention, and the ending of the so-called cease-fire and the whole menagerie that

  781
  went with it, we are now facing a new phase. We can turn our back upon those two episodes and look forward. I come to what the Secretary of State said six months ago and substantially repeated tonight in his analysis of the causes of the violence, although he was then referring almost exclusively to interfactional and sectarian violence. I should like again to quote his exact words. He said:
  "It is clear that this new age of violence"—
  that was the interfactional, sectarian phase—
  "has not arisen out of political aspirations; it is an outbreak of gangsterism fostered no doubt by the atmosphere of disrespect for the law … in recent years".—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 824, 816.]
  The right hon. Gentleman this evening repeated somewhat the same analysis, though perhaps less emphatically.
  With great respect, because the matter is one not of academic but of great practical importance, I want to take direct issue with the right hon. Gentleman. This violence in all its forms is politically motivated. It arises out of political aims and intentions. Of course, it is difficult for us in this House, reared in the tradidition of parliamentary democracy, to recognise as political actions actions such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. But we shall go astray if we seek to conceal the fact that behind even the most bestial, even the most apparently insane, acts of violence in Northern Ireland there is a political motive. However twisted, it is political.
  There is no doubt what that political motive is. It is the same as the motive for the murders by terrorists which are taking place in London. It is the political object of inducing this House and this country, against their will and judgment, to sever Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, against the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. That is the political object behind all the violence in all its forms and in all its phases.
  Mr. Orme: That is not true.
  Mr. Powell: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not true, he will have the opportunity to refute what I say.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman
  782
  extend his definition to embrace the violence from the Protestant quarter?
  Mr. Powell: Of course. Nothing whatsoever that I have said has excluded violence by Protestant paramilitaries or from any part of the spectrum. That violence is motivated and in the end excused, or even glorified, by the alleged fear, or the real fear, that the underlying political object of detaching Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom may be achieved unless people take the law into their own hands. That is the real motive, although the mistaken motive, of much of the violence which comes from bodies such as the proscribed UVF.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The question of whether there is a political motive and where that motive starts is an interesting one in the nature of Northern Ireland. Suppose, however, that there were a solution to the political problem, whatever that might mean. Is it not the case that in parts of Belfast especially there are people who take money off public-house keepers, and who in the Shankill and other parts take money off shopkeepers? Surely that would continue even if there were a political solution. The people who are so motivated seem to be a long way from the political scene.
  Mr. Powell: I do not deny that mere crime, if I may so describe it, is fostered in the environment of the political violence which has raged in Northern Ireland during the past six or seven years. However, much of what appears to be mere crime, such as the robbery which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, frequently takes place on the fringes, as it were, of violence and terrorism which is political. The fact that in some cases these crimes are punished by those who hold unlawful sway in the areas concerned is a demonstration that much of what appears to be mere crime is crime supported by those who are politically motivated and related indirectly to the central political theme.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right, am I wrong in my strong feeling that it is necessary to end the political status of convicted persons? If he says that the violence is political, is he not strengthening the argument that people should be given political status?
  Mr. Powell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point so that I can refute it. A crime committed with a political motive is still a crime and must be punished like any other crime. A murder which is politically motivated is not thereby excused. Nor is the person who commits such a crime entitled to any consideration which any other murderer should not receive. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling me to prevent anyone from drawing that fallacious deduction from what I am saying.
  I repeat: I am not engaging in an academic or philosophical debate with the right hon. Gentleman. My purpose is intensely practical. I shall show how it is so from the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when he spoke of those who urge a declaration of intent to withdraw the Army from that part of the United Kingdom. He said, quite rightly, that nothing would be more catastrophic. However such a declaration was hedged about—irrespective of whether it talked about years or decades—we all know that it would be catastrophic and would produce bloodshed on a larger scale than we have yet witnessed. Yet the right hon. Gentleman was saying in the same breath that that is the objective, the political objective, of those who exercise the dominant and underlying violence in Northern Ireland, and, incidentally, of those who are exercising it here in Great Britian. It is their objective to enforce just such a decision and just such an announcement as that.
  The analysis of the cause of violence, and the measures which we use to deal with it, must be linked, the one following from the other. The Secretary of State rightly says that, faced with this violence—he was admitting, accepting and asserting its political objective despite his earlier remarks—the one thing he will not do is to hold out, under the influence of anything that has been happening, any prospect of the achievement of the political aim of the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, or anything that would be seen as a step towards its detachment; and the right hon. Gentleman added the words "because it is a part of the United Kingdom".
  Now, there are many aspects of policy in which, by omission or commission, a
  784
  diluted form of that very message is constantly being tapped out by the administration in Northern Ireland.
  Let me give examples of what I mean; for it is this that proves how wrong people are who say "If the Army were only given a free hand, and if the security forces were simply told that no holds were barred and that they should get on with it, the situation in Northern Ireland would soon be cleared up". Those people misunderstand the fact that the physical and political are indissoluble from each other, that there is a closed circle which connects the political implications of Government action or inaction with the progress and continuance of violence.
  I shall trespass on the time of the House to refer to only two very different areas of anxiety that come under this head. The first arises directly out of Section 23 of the 1973 Act which we are renewing. It reads:
  "Any person who in a public place dresses or behaves in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member of a proscribed organisation shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding £400, or both".
  We all know that those offences are regularly committed in public under the television cameras and under the eyes of the security forces, the police and the Army. It is no good denying it; it happens. Moreover, on those same occasions illegally-held firearms are not merely displayed but are actually discharged. That is a crime and does not require the Emergency Provisions Act 1973 to make it a crime.
  The Secretary of State said that it was the duty of the police to enforce the law independently of him and that there was no question of the Secretary of State putting pressure on the police force. That may be so. Moreover, the police force—everybody from the Chief Constable to the police constable on the beat—must form its own judgment when confronted with what appears to it to be, and no doubt is, a crime—nobody doubts or disputes that. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that a right judgment is being exercised in permitting the continuance, as an established institution, of the breach of the law governing firearms and the breach of the law in Section 23 of the 1973 Act.

  785
  I say that not out of vindictiveness but because the continuance of this connivance carries with it a political implication, the implication that, while this is a law which would be observed in Great Britain and nobody would get away with breaking, the reason why as a matter of principle it is not enforced in Northern Ireland is the view of Government and Parliament that in the last resort the political future of Northern Ireland is not the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have often considered this. Shortly before I first went to Northern Ireland, and when the Labour Party was in opposition, I appeared on a television programme with a young Army officers who referred to IRA funerals and the shots that were fired during them. He said that the Army failed to deal with them because of political control. At the first security meeting I attended in Northern Ireland I raised this point and said—I never dreamt of saying it later, because it was a silly thing to say—that I would not inhibit the Army. Shots are fired at IRA funerals as well as at UDA funerals. I shall deal with IRA funerals, at which young people fire shots into the air. It was put strongly to me that to break up a funeral in a Catholic area would do more harm than good and that the company commander on the spot has to make a judgment. On one occasion I went incognito to watch such a funeral and I appreciated that point. At similar funerals in recent weeks—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can corroborate this—attendances have been falling all the time. It may be that this approach is best.
  Mr. Powell: We do not discuss a matter such as this, from either side of the House, without a deep sense of responsibility or without being aware of the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention. Nevertheless, my point remains and to some extent he has come to meet it. The point is that continued connivance in a breach of the law in Northern Ireland, in circumstances that are highly politically charged with political symbolism, conveys exactly the message which lies at the root of the continuance of terrorism and bloodshed. The right hon. Gentleman comes to meet
  786
  me in the sense that he, too, accepts that the indefinite continuance of those breaches of the law, as if they were institutionalised, is something that cannot be accepted. Perhaps by bringing this out into the open and by our exchange this evening something has been achieved.
  The second area to which I wish to refer is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) namely, South Armagh, about which we hear every day. The area is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in uncomfortable proximity to mine and not many miles from my Ulster home. There it is especially tempting for people to suppose that provided the correct military and security dispositions are taken the difficulties in due course will disappear. I am not suggesting that we have the military or the security dispositions right yet. On the contrary, I believe the events of the last few weeks have proved that we have not yet got the right tactical approach in South Armagh. However, that is not the point I am on.
  The point is that all the tactics in the world in South Armagh will not eliminate that cancer—that political as well as physical cancer—from Northern Ireland unless the whole political framework of what happens in South Armagh is also perceived and dealt with. It is the control of the frontier which is there at stake. So long as it appears that as a matter of policy the frontier between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic is quite deliberately not treated as any other frontier anywhere else in the world would be, so long will those who wish to draw deductions draw the deduction that the frontier is regarded by Government, Parliament and opinion in this country as a transitory phenomenon. In other words, it becomes part of the political fuel of continuing violence.
  When I refer to the control of the frontier I am well aware of the physical and practical difficulties of direct control. I have two specific comments to make in that respect. First, if there are to be controlled crossings of the frontier, then, once the Government engage upon a policy they must stick to it. They must adopt a policy which it is practicable to carry through, but having once adopted it they must not be deterred from persisting in it. It is worse than nothing to

  787
  attempt to block or crater unapproved crossings and then abandon them afterwards. This does more harm than if no action is taken in the first place. A recognisable policy for the physical control of crossings, authorised and unauthorised crossings, must therefore be persisted with.
  However, as on the Continent, physical control of a land frontier—unless there is to be an Iron Curtain—is not in itself sufficient. It is real only when it is backed by internal control over identification, over legality of presence, of entry and of movement. The Government's control of the frontier, which is part of the emergency law—although not part of that which we are renewing tonight—will not be treated seriously, and consequently the Government's political purpose will not be taken seriously, unless control becomes a reality both on the frontier—so far as that is possible—and by means of identification within the United Kingdom.
  I will be specific. I know that I am not alone in believing that the time has come when the people of Northern Ireland, whatever might have been their opinion in very different years gone by would actually welcome it if their movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland were subject to the necessity of carrying a passport which showed that they were or were not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They
  788
  would welcome it if it were a requirement in Northern Ireland for every person to carry not merely a means of identification but something which showed, if he was not a citizen of this country, how he came to be here and whether or not he came to be here legally.
  The Secretary of State may claim that this is a very big issue, and it is; but it is something which would now have the backing of the bulk of opinion in Northern Ireland. Unless the Government are seen to be serious about the frontier between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic they will not be believed to be politically serious in their approach to violence in Northern Ireland.
  I must refer once again to the precision with which the Secretary of State pinpointed the connection between violence in all its forms and the desire to force the British Government into foreshadowing the destruction, in the future, of the present status of Northern Ireland. Everything, whether omission or commission, which brings that status into doubt is the root cause of the continuance of all forms of the violence with which Northern Ireland is so afflicted and which none of us in this House doubts—and I assume that this includes the hon Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but he will doubtless speak for himself—makes at present inevitable something of the nature of the laws and powers which we are renewing tonight.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Since the introduction of these emergency provisions in 1973 and our subsequent debates on their retention, this is the first time we can say that detention or internment without trial no longer exists in Northern Ireland. That is a tremendous advance towards achieving normality. I again extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State for his courageous decision in the face of the mounting and unwarranted opposition of the gunboat diplomats on the extreme fringe of the Conservative Party.
  It has been said that many hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies have never wholeheartedly favoured detention. I understand that they have not raised objections to its ending. That onerous task has been taken up by the Front Bench Members of the Conservative Party, who were perhaps doing their little thing without the knowledge or support of elected representatives from Northern Ireland. In adopting that attitude Conservative Front Bench speakers were not being honest with themselves, because it was their own party which began the process of releasing detainees. It was recognised at the time that it would be a continuing process.
  It was in 1972, after the abolition of Stormont and the imposition of direct rule, that the former Conservative Secretary of State began releasing internees, as they were then known—long before Sunning-dale was even thought of. Sunningdale was a golf course to me then. Little did I know that it would be written into the pages of history because of the political agreement reached there.
  The process was therefore begun by the Conservative Party, and it ill behoves Conservative spokesmen now to mount completely unjustified criticism of my right hon. Friend when he is trying to end one of the greatest divisive factors in recent years in Northern Ireland's political troubles. It is certainly accepted that the introduction of internment in 1971 was the greatest morale booster, the greatest weapon, that the IRA had ever had. It has exploited its continuation and its propaganda and emotional value throughout the years.
  I repeat what I said last week in a brief supplementary question. I think that it
  790
  will be generally conceded by Northern Ireland Members, although they may be my political opponents, that in the years which succeeded 9th August 1971 Sinn Fein celebrated—that was its own word, not "commemorated"—every anniversary of the introduction of internment by hijacking and burning buses, by intimidation and riots—and all in minority Catholic areas. They did not celebrate it on the Malone Road or the suburbs and affluent areas of Belfast. They celebrated it in the minority areas, causing nothing but distress and despair.
  But I repeat what I said last week. There were no bonfires lit on the streets of Belfast when my right hon. Friend brought internment to an end, because there was nothing to celebrate. In fact, a whole new industry was closed—the Christmas card industry from Long Kesh. One card bore a picture of wires with a little girl holding on to them saying "I want my daddy. My daddy is interned without trial and without any charge in Northern Ireland." Those cards went all over the world and were one of the biggest propaganda weapons that the IRA ever had. From them it received quite a lot of financial return from people all over the world, especially from Irish-Americans who did not understand what was happening in Northern Ireland.
  Many of my constituents were the victims of internment in Northern Ireland. In the interests of my constituency, perhaps I might ask my right hon. Friend to apply his mind to setting up some new industry in the place of the one which has been taken away by the Secretary of State—the making of Christmas cards in Northern Ireland.
  To convince people who are still opposed to the ending of detention, I want to repeat again that it was the right decision to take. However, many people will think that, now that detention has been ended, the minority community who suffered so tragically because of the introduction of internment ought to be able to put it out of their minds. I know that a number of Loyalists were interned as well. But we must not forget that every person interned without trial in Northern Ireland had a family who were involved. His wife, his brothers, his sisters and his relations were all made antagonistic towards the system. Hostility was

  791
  generated because a member of the family had been interned.
  The Secretary of State said at one time that 2,000 people had seen the inside of Long Kesh. If we multiply that number by all the close and distant relations—even people who would not want to be friendly with some of their relations—the figure can be brought up to 60,000 or 70,000 Loyalists and Republicans who were involved in some way or other with detention and internment.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend is not so unrealistic as to expect, now that internment has been brought to an end, the whole minority community to begin to co-operate completely with the voice of authority in Northern Ireland. The ending of detention does not mean that everyone will wake up next morning with a clear conscience. The slate has not been wiped absolutely clean. There will not be a new beginning immediately. People will still feel strongly about it. They are people who were sadly affected by the tragedy of internment. It will take them some time to forget the effect that internment had on those who were interned and on their families. It is only understandable that they may not co-operate completely within hours, days or weeks.
  But the great barrier against co-operation has been removed. I have said in Northern Ireland and I say again here to the minority community who were so sadly affected by internment and all that went with it that it has been a long political battle to have internment brought to an end.
  I understand that the last detainee to be released is one of my constituents, although I have serious doubts whether he has ever supported me at the polls. When he was released, he made a statement and it was shown on television. It appears that he did not write the statement himself, because he did not pronounce the words very well when he read it. In the course of it, he said that the SDLP could take no credit for the ending of detention. I am not sure whether the SDLP can take credit for it. I leave that to my right hon. Friend. But the people who most certainly cannot take credit for the ending of detention are the Provisional IRA. They were the last people to want to see internment
  792
  and detention ended, because it was the greatest weapon they had in their armoury.
  But again I say that the minority community will not easily or readily forget the effects of internment. I hope to be able to stand in this House and see the obnoxious internment provision no longer necessary. But the minority community must recognise, and I am certain they do, that detention has been brought to an end. If it is introduced again in the future, and I hope to God it never is, it will have been brought about by an upsurge of violence by people who want to see internment reactivated. They will be people who engage in violence with the specific intention of detention being reintroduced. The minority must be warned to watch every action of the men of violence because they will try to bring about the return of detention.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the elected politicians for Northern Ireland were Members elected to this House, and he referred to local authority representatives in Northern Ireland. I know that it would be very difficult, particularly in relation to an Irishman, to put a correct interpretation on who is and who is not a politician, because everyone in Ireland regards himself as being a politician at some level. There are many Members who are now elected to the Convention in Northern Ireland and who were Members of the previous political establishment at Stormont, who were recognised as politicians. I am sure they would look askance at some of their new elected Members who sit in this House if they were no longer regarded as politicians, because they try to represent the political aspirations of those who returned them to the Convention.
  I have some reservations about accepting the right hon. Member's interpretation of a politician. I hope it was not a subtle attempt to further his argument on total integration, because that could be the spin-off from the sentiments that he has just expressed. If we are the only elected politicians in Northern Ireland, this could be used as an argument for total integration.
  Mr. Powell: Not at present.
  Mr. Fitt: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has never been a

  793
  supporter of devolved government for Northern Ireland. If that is so, there may be a real local difficulty with those who at present sit with him in this House.
  Mr. Powell: I was sticking to what was in my election address, which was the same election address as that of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Fitt: One of the politicians elected to the Convention, Professor Kennedy Lindsay—he was a member of the Vanguard Party—said in his election address that the right hon. Gentleman and he were colleagues. But there is a big difference in interpretation.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South uses his undoubted logic about the Northern Ireland situation, but it is not enough. If a newspaper wanted to do so, it could quite honestly say that he had justified every violent action over the past years on the ground that it was politically motivated. That is the way it will be taken in Northern Ireland. It is exactly what the provisional IRA, the UDA, the UVF and all the other illegal organisations want. They want to be able to say, "We were motivated by political idealism and, therefore, we are apart from ordinary criminals. We should have special consideration inside prison, and when and if there is an amnesty—"and there will be an amnesty—" we will be released." That is the way the right hon. Gentleman's argument will be taken in Northern Ireland.
  I have lived and fought in Northern Ireland politics for a long time. I take the contrary view. I have said time and again, in the face of total opposition by the PIRA and the other illegal organisations, that I do not, never have and never will regard murder, maiming, kneecapping, bank robbery and intimidation as politically motivated. They are criminal offences and those who engage in them are criminals.
  Mr. Powell: Of course they are—they are political criminals.
  Mr. Fitt: I do not believe that they are politically motivated. Many of those committing these crimes have no political motivation but are out for personal and private gain. That goes for both sides.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Would not the hon. Gentleman
  794
  accept that what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is no different from the stance taken by all of us sitting on this Bench? We have said frequently that in Northern Ireland there is a primary source of violence—the Provisional IRA—with all its related violence and lawlessness. We have said that it is all part and parcel of the same problem and that until the primary source is dealt with we cannot hope to overcome all the other forms of violence and petty crime, because they are linked together.
  Mr. Fitt: I do not think that the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South is completely in line with what has been said by his hon. Friends over the years. Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will be able to influence him to a greater degree so that we shall hear a united voice from their party.
  I accept that these people are criminals, but I argue that we cannot expect the security forces to settle a criminal problem to the total exclusion of trying to deal with the political divisions in Northern Ireland. This is not a simple security problem against criminals. One has to try to tackle both problems at the same time.
  Earlier today we had a debate on capital punishment for terrorism. No one knows more about terrorism than we in Northern Ireland. My impression is that the debate was generated by the assassination of Mr. McWhirter. Some people in Northern Ireland might ask why the House of Commons became so hysterical and upset because of the assassination of an individual in London when there has been so much murder in Northern Ireland, although mostly of people less prominent than Mr. McWhirter. I never met Mr. McWhirter, but I sympathise with his family. Perhaps we would not have agreed politically, but he did not deserve the death he died.
  But does anyone seriously believe that the restoration of capital punishment would have stopped the PIRA? The first thing it would have done would have been to recruit 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds for bombing missions. What court, jury, country or Government would agree to a boy or girl of 16 or 17 being hanged for a terrorist offence? That would have been the result had the vote

  795
  today gone the other way and had the decision been implemented.
  It is to the terrible discredit of the IRA that it has callously exploited the idealism of the young. I do not restrict my remarks in this respect to the IRA. because many young people of the tender age of 16 or 17 have been used on the Loyalist side. Those who are now before the courts in Northern Ireland—Loyalist extremists and Republican extremists—are usually of the age of 18 or 19. Those kids were 12 or 13 in 1968. It is the people who are using these youngsters who are the criminals.
  Mr. McCusker: Has not the hon. Gentleman within the past few minutes contradicted what he said earlier? Is not the idealism which motivates teenagers of 16, 17 or 18 a political idealism? I disagree with it, but it is because of that that they are caught in the web and are prepared to commit the atrocities they are committing.
  Mr. Fitt: I have said repeatedly in this House that they are people involved who are politically motivated, but I repeat that there are people who are in it for personal gain and they are exploiting the situation and are in no way motivated by any political ideals.
  We have referred to the debate which took place here this afternoon. It is known in Northern Ireland that this debate is taking place tonight. It is known there that earlier we were discussing capital punishment. That is why the bomb went off in Royal Avenue. It was an act of defiance. It was to say "When we want to, we will." There was the hijacking of a Post Office van in Belfast this afternoon and the threatening of the legal driver of the van, forcing him to drive the bomb up to the side of an Army post in Royal Avenue. I understand that five soldiers were injured. That was despicable cowardice on the part of people who are allegedly motivated by political idealism but do not have the courage to drive their bomb to its destination. They used some poor innocent person, who was perhaps absolutely terrified by having to do that. I say without fear of contradiction that those who force innocent people to drive bombs in this proxy manner are nothing but despicable cowards.
  796
  In regard to our emergency legislation and the debate which took place earlier today, I must say that I feel more bitter about maiming than murders. We have a situation in which a person aged 75 or 80—although to me all life is sacred—could be killed in an explosion, and those responsible would, if the motion debated earlier today had been approved and implemented, be subject to the death penalty. On the other hand, a bomb could explode in a restaurant, killing no one but causing scores of people, young and old, male and female, to have limbs blown off and to have to live out their lives without their natural arms or legs. The persons caught and convicted of that offence would not be subjected to the death penalty. They would be sentenced to imprisonment. To me such people are far more guilty, in one sense, than those who kill someone.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly spent some time in his own defence and the defence of his Ministers in relation to the subject of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has been very explicit in putting forward his point of view, in contradistincton to what others are saying in Northern Ireland. I have had absolutely no consultation with any of my colleagues from Northern Ireland on this issue, so there is no question of any collusion. However, when the present Chief Constable was appointed two years ago it was widely known that he was a Roman Catholic. It was pointed out in a Press report that he was a Catholic. At that time I issued a statement in which I said that the fact that he was a Roman Catholic did not influence me. I said that his religion meant nothing to me and that I wanted to see whether he was a good policeman.
  The remarks of my colleague, Paddy Devlin, have been referred to. Perhaps Paddy Devlin felt justified in saying what he did at that time, and I know that he would not want to go back on his words. However, in the years which have elapsed since Mr. Flanagan was appointed Chief Constable the whole community in Northern Ireland has found him to be what he should be—a policeman who is acting in the interest of the whole community of Northern Ireland.
  Sadly, all too often I have had occasion to go to the Chief Constable about

  797
  assassinations which have taken place, in particular in West Belfast, where there is an interface area where cars come in. Some of the people who were guilty of those murders have subsequently been caught and convicted and are now serving terms of imprisonment. I remember a particular occasion before Christmas when two brothers who worked in the Post Office were on their way up Divis Road when a car came round from Northumberland Street and they were killed. I can recall another occasion when two or three people were killed in the same way in North Belfast.
  When those murders took place, I thought it only right to go to the Chief Constable to seek his assistance about what steps could possibly be taken to prevent further assassinations of that kind taking place. I found him to be a very impartial and concerned police administrator. He asked me whether I had any suggestions about what steps should be taken to try to prevent these assassinations taking place. On some occasions I was accompanied by Mr. Devlin and on others, when brutal assassinations were taking place in what is called the "murder triangle", my colleague who represents that part of Northern Ireland accompanied me. We felt that in the circumstances it was only right to go to the Chief Constable.
  I repeat that the everyday activities of the RUC, in its attempt to stamp out violence and criminal activities in Northern Ireland, receive wholehearted support. At present security is under the control of Westminster. Provided we can ensure that the police force is acting impartially towards all the community in Northern Ireland, showing no bias in favour of one community as opposed to another, it will have our wholehearted support in whatever steps it takes to eradicate violence from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Orme: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this aspect, I should like to point out that I have noted what he and other hon. Members have said about the present Chief Constable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not defending the situation. He was explaining the legal situation and his statutory powers. If my hon. Friend wants to address remarks about Sir Jamie Flanagan and the decision of the Police Authority, he must address them to the Police Authority.
  Mr. Fitt: My right hon. Friend's intervention appears to indicate that there are deep feelings running in the Northern Ireland Office about certain allegations which are being made. I am making no allegation. Indeed, I have not done so throughout this controversy. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office officials about the controversy which has arisen over the retirement, or possibly the premature retirement, of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said—he has said it again tonight—that he has played absolutely no part in the decision which was taken by the Police Authority to replace the Chief Constable.
  The present Chief Constable, on taking up his appointment, said that he would take it for two years. He was then 61. He is now 63. In the 24 months since he took up his appointment he and certain people in Northern Ireland have found that he has had the confidence of his own force as no other chief constable or inspector-general had. It is a unique departure from previous political developments in Northern Ireland that I can stand up in this House, sit in a television studio in Northern Ireland or make statements to the Northern Ireland Press and confirm that I have found the Chief Constable to be a man well fitted for the position that he holds. There is political progress there.
  I do not think that this would be an occasion for any of my political opponents to bring up the question of the SDLP's non-acceptance of our support for the RUC. Many things which have happened in the past have led to the minority community's feelings about the RUC and the question of its non-acceptance or support. Many events in history—some of that history is not in the distant past—have led to the determining of the minority's attitude to the police.
  I am confirmed in my belief when I see that Lord Hunt, who was appointed by the previous Labour Government, in a letter to The Times on 27th November, in which he appeared to be answering a letter which had been written by Mr. Harry West in Northern Ireland, said he would agree that security should be transferred to any new devolved governmental structures in Northern Ireland on

  799
  the condition that there was full involvement and partnership between both communities.
  That is exactly what the SDLP wants. We want new political structures which will allow participation by the whole community in Northern Ireland. In that event I would be the first to aid and abet the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his demand for a return of security functions to Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South—unusually for him—seemed to relate his remarks to the wearing of illegal uniforms in specifically Republican areas. I admit that the wearing of uniforms and the firing of shots over the graves of Republican soldiers, claimed to have been killed in action, takes place. However, that happens in other than Republican areas. It happens in Armagh—not South Armagh. It happens in Portadown. That is an area which is allegedly in support of all the security forces and where there is no objection to the operation of the RUC. After the murder of the Miami Showband, in which two UVF men lost their lives, there was a military funeral at Portadown. Many uniforms were worn and shots were fired over the coffins. Yet neither the RUC nor the military took any action. Therefore, it is unfair to point the finger at one section of extremists in Northern Ireland and not to look at the mote in one's own eye.
  This debate is about security. I hope that we may quickly see the day when I can stand here, perhaps in association with my colleagues from Northern Ireland, and talk about houses, shops, education, poverty and the deprivation which exists in all our constituencies. That is what I wanted to do in politics. I am not happy to be talking about security situations, emergency legislation and people getting killed, and totting up the number of crimes committed in Northern Ireland by one side or the other. It is completely against everything which first motivated me to enter politics.
  I prefaced my remarks by saying that we wanted to see an end to this type of legislation. We shall no longer have any reason to discuss it only when political progress and developments take place in Northern Ireland, when we can create structures which have the allegiance of
  800
  all the people of Northern Ireland, when they can all act in government and in community with each other, trying to forget the sad divisions and tragedies of not only the past seven years but all the years before.
  The men of violence can exploit the present vacuum to their own advantage. I urge my right hon. Friend to use whatever influence he can with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Northern Ireland Convention is reconvened, whatever the right hon. Member for Down, South may think of it. I know that he does not put it very high on his list of priorities, but many people in Northern Ireland do. Many people who have lived all their lives in Northern Ireland, young and old, want to see the return of devolved government to Northern Ireland.
  I appeal to the Government to try to reconvene the Convention, to see whether it is possible to reach political agreement. My right hon. Friend is aware that it will be no easy task, but, with all the obstacles that we shall find on the road to a political settlement, we should be given a further opportunity. After all, six months was a short time in the life of Northern Ireland to try to find solutions to a problem which had existed for 300 or 400 years.
  The Government would be right to give the Convention another opportunity to see whether it can find a solution, and they should reconvene it as soon as possible. I hope and believe that we could make some political progress which would make it unnecessary for us ever again to have to discuss the kind of legislation we are discussing tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Both Front Bench speakers have agreed to limit the winding-up speeches to 10 minutes each, but that leaves us with only 26 minutes for four hon. Members who wish to speak.
  10.44 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There are many matters that Members on this side of the House would like to discuss tonight, but time is short. I suppose that we should be grateful that we are having an extended debate because the House finished its previous business rather quickly. We should normally have had one and a half hours to debate the

  801
  Order. I believe that an extended debate is necessary in the circumstances.
  There are some things that the people of Northern Ireland will want their representatives to say with great strength and force in this debate. First, I want briefly to refer to the despicable attack made on me and my colleagues by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in the first debate of the day. He said that he hoped we would be in the dock. He talked about going to Northern Ireland and meeting the heads of the IRA. I do not know how he can be willing to meet wanted men, but evidently the hon. Gentleman has some direct line to wanted men. He castigated myself and my hon. Friend because the UDA no longer says anything in our favour, but if we had the approval of the UDA, we should be greeted with a howl of condemnation.
  As some of us have condemned the murders committed by various Protestant groups we have come in for the lash of those groups, but we intend to do what is right and to say what is right no matter what some hon. Members may think about us. I shall not say any more about that, because the hon. Gentleman does not happen to be present. I prefer to speak about people when they are present, but I must put that on the record.
  Let the House know that in Northern Ireland we have a serious state of affairs. In the previous debate it was said that the people should not take the law into their own hands. That was put forward as a precious principle of British democracy. But when the police and the Army say that they cannot defend us, that they can do nothing for us, what are we to do? Do we say "All right, we shall be slaughtered."? My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has hundreds upon hundreds of constituents living in outlying farms. Tonight, and at any time, they will lie as prey to the IRA murderers. Neither the police nor the Army can do or are doing anything about that.
  Let it be made clear that attempts have been made to murder many people in public life in Northern Ireland. Many of us have experienced such attempts. Reference was made today to such attempts by the Home Secretary, but he does not know about all the attempts to murder Northern Ireland Members. He
  802
  does not know about the shots that have been fired through our windows. My wife has been attacked in the streets of Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that attempts have been made on the lives of only two Members, but some of us can list many such attempts. That does not apply only to United Ulster Unionist Members but to politicians on both sides of the fence.
  Let the Government not wash their hands Pilate-like at the Dispatch Box and think that Northern Ireland people are not suffering. We know that law and order have broken down. We know that the police and the Army cannot defend the populace of Northern Ireland. We are in a sad and sorry state of affairs.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman says that the Army and the police cannot defend the Northern Ireland people, but that is not completely true. The Army and the police are defending. If the Army were withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be put in a very difficult situation. The hon. Gentleman may make his protestations but I am sure that he will recognise that the Army is doing an essential job on behalf of the civil power, whether it be in Belfast or within South Armagh.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should not like my remarks to be interpreted in that way. I am not saying anything against what the Army is doing, but when the Army and the police tell my constituents "We cannot do anything for you" and when they tell the business people in Belfast "We cannot give you protection", it is clear that those people have a right to point out to their public representatives that security in Northern Ireland is in a sad state.
  The Government Front Bench would do far better by waking up to the fact that we are in a serious state in Northern Ireland. Let no one try in any way to diminish the terrible tragedy that is happening in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland expect their representatives in this House to spell it out in crystal-clear language. They cry out for security, peace and defence.
  Often it is not possible for them to have them. Even the Secretary of State must admit—and it was admitted in the debate on the first Order—that the police

  803
  could not possibly execute many of the provisions. The Army will have to undertake that job. That shows the sorry state of things. There are instances where the Army cannot do the job of the police because the troops are not trained to do it.
  Let me make clear that many people in Northern Ireland are on their own in terms of security. It is also a fact that many public representatives are told "You may have a personal weapon and if you are attacked you must do your best, because probably neither police nor Army will be present when you are attacked." We have to face up to that situation.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right in that sense, but I would remind him that there are 14,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland and each individual man in the five battalions works 18 hours a day. I can see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he seeks to say that there is no defence, he is not facing up to the fact that there are sections of the community where support has been given to paramilitary organisations on both sides—and I shall not go into who came first. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not depreciating what the Army is doing. What he is saying gets through to the ordinary soldiers from this part of the United Kingdom. They do not take kindly to criticism when they are working as hard as they possibly can and doing an excellent job.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have offered no criticism at any time of the Army or of the police. I am the first to say that these men are doing a terrific and tremendous job, but they cannot totally do the job of defending Northern Ireland.
  It also needs to be said that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom because the British Army happens to be there. A number of hon. Members come to me and say "If the Army pulled out, what would happen?" It would not change the determination of the majority to remain within the United Kingdom.
  It is also a fact that Ulstermen who defended Ulster for 50 years by the Vote of this House were disbanded, destroyed, and told "We do not want you to defend the people of Northern Ireland." It ill becomes Members of this House to say that the British Army is defending Ulster.
  804
  Ulster had its defences. Those defences were criticised in the same way as I have heard hon. Members criticise the Army.
  We have one Member who flits in and out and who has not yet made his maiden speech. He was in today. No wonder—he is afraid that some of his IRA friends might be hanged for some depredation, so he came in to cast his vote. I said to my hon. Friends "He is saying things about the British Army that are almost as diabolical as the criticisms made of the Ulster Special Constabulary whose members defended Ulster". We in Ulster know what is happening. We live with this situation.
  This House, by its own vote, decided that the RUC should no longer be an armed police force. Sir John Hunt has been quoted tonight. When we were about to be plunged into a savage IRA onslaught, the Ulster defences were taken from us. The Ulster Special Constabulary was disbanded and was left as the prey. This House has a serious responsibility in these matters.
  I came to this House many years ago and I remember that for a debate such as this the Benches would be packed with Members all shouting against the RUC, the B-Specials and Stormont. We were told "Do away with these things and you will have peace". So the police were disarmed. Did that bring peace? The Specials disappeared. Did that bring peace? Stormont was destroyed. Did that bring peace?
  An ombudsman and commissioner to hear complaints was appointed because it was said that there was religious discrimination right across the board in Northern Ireland. How many cases of religious discrimination has the ombudsman Droved? How many times has he even been used? The office of the commissioner for complaints and the ombudsman had to be held by one person because no one brought any complaints.
  We were told to get rid of internment. I was always opposed to internment, although some of my colleagues were not. The Secretary of State said that if there were a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, he would finish with detention. He should not have said anything of the sort. He should have said that he was finishing with detention—full stop—because there has not been a

  805
  genuine and sustained cessation of violence, but detention is now over.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The major reason that I have been able to end detention is that nearly 1,200 people have passed through the courts and been sentenced. It is not because there has been a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, which I mentioned earlier this year. There has been a change and it is the success of the security forces that has enabled me to do it.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State may like to know that the words "genuine and sustained cessation of violence" are on everyone's tongue in Northern Ireland. There is no such thing. The bombings are continuing, but detention is over. The Secretary of State is critical of my party and probably more critical of me than anyone else. He brings many things on his own head in relation to Northern Ireland. One example was the result of the cease-fire because his officials and the Provisional Sinn Fein, which is the IRA wearing a political hat, whatever shape and size it may be, had talks. The Provisional Sinn Fein released certain information about what was said at those talks. Whether what was released was true, the talks were reported, and that gave rise to the serious situation of Government officials having talks with those who were the front-line propagandists of the bombers and killers. In Northern Ireland we saw these very people on our television screens defending violence. I saw one of them defending the shooting of a six-year-old girl. The other night Marie Drumm excused the shooting of that six-year-old girl.
  Mr. Fitt: I should say in defence of the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that the person allegedly responsible for the killing of that six-year-old girl has been charged and is before the courts.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether Government officials and the Provisional Sinn Fein are still talking. I am told that at that meeting Sir Frank Cooper is reported to have said to the Provisional Sinn Fein that—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not the practice of the House to mention the
  806
  Permanent Under-Secretary of any Department. However, I shall make it absolutely clear that he never met a member of the Provisional Sinn Fein in those talks.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State says "in those talks". I am saying that Sir Frank Cooper has talked to the Provisional Sinn Fein.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not true.
  Mr. Orme: Attack the Ministers, not the civil servants.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When men's lives are at stake it is far too serious to quibble over civil servants. If civil servants, acting in the name of the Secretary of State, are doing things that the people of Ulster do not like, we shall expose them. I shall go further, because things have been said tonight which have implied that we are responsible for what is happening to Sir Jamie Flanagan.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must make it absolutely clear that I am responsible for all these matters, and it is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating an untruth. No meeting has taken place with Sir Frank Cooper, and the hon. Gentleman is repeating the same sort of rubbish we had earlier in the year about Seamus Twomey. That was rubbish also.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may join in now. It is not out of Order to criticise civil servants, but it is not the custom of the House to do so. I cannot remember its being done. This seems to me to be a disagreement in argument, not a point of order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am aware of that Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to finish now. Nevertheless, there are things which need to be said tonight in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has mentioned the Seamus Twomey affair. On that occasion an Army document came into my possession.
  Mr. Orme: How?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know how that document came to me, he should go to his friends in the Army and the police with whom I was in touch when I got the

  807
  document and hear from them. I got that Army document—
  Mr. Orme: Illegally.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I did not get it illegally. The Secretary of State denied that document existed although it was produced in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). Yet the police questioned him under the Official Secrets Act. How can someone be questioned about a document which we are told did not exist?
  The document, which I released to the Press, stated that Mr. Twomey was no longer a wanted man. The Northern Ireland Office said that what I was claiming was rubbish, yet the Army investigated the document and confirmed that it was authentic. As far as the Army was concerned, Mr. Twomey was not a wanted man. The RUC, however, issued a statement to say that he was wanted under a warrant which had been issued in the South of Ireland. The Army did not arrest the leader of the IRA and he was allowed to walk around in an Army area.
  Mr. Orme: That is not true.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have control only over whether an interim custody order is issued. At the beginning of the year I told the Army which ICOs I was signing. The Army knew that Seamus Twomey was not wanted under an ICO. The hon. Gentleman may say what he likes. The police will pick up whom they like. I never discuss with them whom they want. This issue involves only the issuing of an ICO to the Army.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Let us move on to the Jamie Flanagan issue. When he was appointed there was a move by the then Secretary of State to enlarge the membership of the Police Authority by including on it elected representatives. We met the Authority, and it gave us an assurance that it would not appoint the Chief Constable until it had consulted the elected representatives again.
  Mr. Orme: You said you were going to raise it in the Assembly.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: How could I say that when I had been kicked out of the Assembly?
  Mr. Orme: It was said.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that it was said. What I complained about was the way in which the appointment was made. I never criticised Sir Jamie Flanagan, because I did not then know the individual. The Press thought that I would attack him because he was a Roman Catholic. But on the day that report appeared I told him personally the truth of the matter. Mr. Harry West, Captain Michael Armstrong, Mr. Ernest Baird and I met the Vice-Chairman of the Police Authority—
  Mr. Orme: Recently?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, recently. We asked to see the Police Authority about this issue. We asked a series of questions. We asked, first, whether the Authority was totally happy with the way in which Sir Jamie Flanagan had carried out the duties of his office. The answer was, certainly, Incidentally, Sir Jamie Flanagan is not 63, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) tried to make out: he is 61.
  We then asked whether there had been a meeting of the Police Authority which had divided 8–8, when the chairman had used his casting vote in favour of asking Sir Jamie to stay on, not indefinitely but until an appointment was made. Then, quite properly, as elected representatives, we asked to meet the whole Police Authority, and that was arranged. But the meeting was suddenly cancelled.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about the police. We all know that the SDLP does not support the police. The SDLP has tied itself to a resolution to that effect. One of the most prominent colleagues of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, Councillor Tom Donnelly, resigned as a result of that resolution.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no authority to ask any hon. Member who is addressing the House to sit down, but there is an understanding of which I think the hon. Member is aware.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is all very well for the Minister of State to talk about violation. It is essential that the view of the representatives of Northern Ireland is heard in this House. We have heard a long statement from the Secretary of State. But if this is the way you want to run the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that elected representatives cannot put their views in answer to points made by Ministers, I understand. I will take my seat now and put you out of your agony. As an Ulsterman, I do not wish to put any Welshman, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that position.
  No matter what the attitude of Mr. Devlin to Sir Jamie Flanagan, or of the SDLP to the police, there is a united feeling among all sections of the community that Sir Jamie is acceptable. He has done a good job. The Police Authority should open its ears and hear what the people are saying. The Secretary of State should use his influence to see that it knows what has been said tonight.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), for whose forbearance we are most grateful—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Thank you.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison:—said that the Secretary of State had ended detention without fulfilling the conditions which he had himself laid down, and that is true. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) criticised the Opposition Front Bench for its attitude to detention. In this Order we are continuing the power to detain and if no Secretary of State ever finds it necessary to make use of the power again, we on these Benches will be very happy—particularly those of us who have visited the Maze, both when it was standing and when it was razed to the ground.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the Christmas card industry. I well remember receiving a card from the Maze bearing a picture of the barbed wire and a little message saying, "Wish you were here".
  Many fewer would be voting in public opinion polls to pull out troops were they wholly confident of the entire Government's will to win and to stick to their
  810
  policy, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) urged. That is why the Opposition welcome much of what the Secretary of State said. We applaud his rejection of any declaration of intent to withdraw, and we are glad of his resolve that our troops will remain in strength in support of the civil power for so long as they are needed to safeguard our fellow citizens there—in other words, until normal policing can be established throughout the Province.
  There has been mention of the chief constableship of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Secretary of State himself praised the success of the RUC in bringing political and sectarian gangsters and common thugs to book. If I express my own admiration of the achievement of Sir Jamie Flanagan, I am doing what has been done tonight on both sides of the House and what has been done in Northern Ireland in a rare, if not unique, exhibition of political unanimity uniting the SDLP and the UUUC.
  Those who urge on Ministers courses of surrender to the IRA and scuttle from Northern Ireland fall broadly into 'two categories—the subversive and the confused. The former, the subversive, betray deliberate and callous indifference. The latter, the confused, betray an unwitting indifference to the lives of our citizens, overwhelmingly peaceable and law abiding as they are, overwhelmingly and democratically committed to the Union and entitled to look to the Government of that Union for protection.
  The evacuation of Ulster would, in all probability, precipitate a civil war. It would not stop short at the Irish border. It would not halt at the Irish Sea. I do not have to tell right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that the Antrim coast is about 15 miles from Scotland. The Secretary of State has himself warned us of what he called a "Congo" in Ireland which would spill over into Britain. Such a catastrophe would delight the IRA and those in other parts of the extreme republican movement, some of whom may have their devil's compact with a few elements in so-called Protestant private armies. It would result in the capture of what Churchill once called "the sentinel towers of the Western Approaches". The 32-county Socialist republic desired by both wings of the IRA is not Socialist

  811
  as it is conceived by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of State.
  But why terrorism? Are these terrorist atrocities committed on both sides of the water "mindless" and "motiveless"? Those are two words used by the Secretary of State. I think not, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South about this. These political terrorist atrocities are coldly calculated in an attempt so to terrify people and their Government as to turn them from their purpose. Conversely, once it is convincingly established that the British Government and people are not to be intimidated, ultimate failure of the terrorist is certain.
  So the Opposition support this Order. It was not always quite the same when the roles were reversed and we were sitting on opposite sides. But we in the Conservative Party supported earlier legislation; we support this. It was our duty, and it is our duty. But, equally, it has been the duty of the Opposition in recent weeks and months to express the concern felt not only on these Benches but in our constituencies at the response of the Northern Ireland administration to the so-called cease-fire—vehement reference was made to it by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—and what has appeared to so many people in this country as an uncertain political direction of the campaign against terrorism, whether in South Armagh or elsewhere.
  But, that said, I assure the Secretary of State that Her Majesty's Government can count on the co-operation of Her Majesty's Opposition in the measures now necessary to end this cruel terrorism throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  11.20 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): When the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) disagree with Government policy, they have a perfect right to say so. However, it appears to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to other Ministers and to me that when we take decisions of which they approve, they give wholehearted support, but that when we take difficult decisions, such as to end detention, they leave the
  812
  Government in a difficult position and do nor support us.
  Mr. Neave: I thought that I had made it clear quite generously that I realised that the Secretary of State felt strongly about this matter, and I hoped he realised that there were others on this side of the House who felt equally strongly about the ending of detention. Perhaps we should leave the matter there. The Minister of State might think it better not to continue on this theme.
  Mr. Orme: We have had our exchanges and we shall leave the matter at that. I thought it right to put our point of view on the record as hard as the hon. Gentleman has put his.
  I do not think that there will be a vote against this Order, which will be unique. But the debate has been contentious. The hon. Member for Abingdon raised the subject of charges against members of proscribed organisations. There have been 291 charges since August 1973, when the Emergency Provisions Act came into force—50 for membership alone and 241 in conjunction with some other charge—while 57 prosecutions were instituted during the eight months from 31st March to 31st October 1975.
  Linked with this is in some ways the case of Seamus Twomey, to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred again. I thought that my right hon. Friend had made it clear that when he stopped signing interim custody orders the power of the Army to arrest in that regard was removed. What was not removed was the action of the police in relation to any offence that they considered had been committed by any person in Northern Ireland.
  If the Army were to arrest such a person, he would be handed over to the RUC. No instructions were issued by the Government. The security forces were free to operate. The myth perpetrated in Northern Ireland, not least by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, does no service to the security forces. The hon. Member may think that he is attacking my right hon. Friend, but he is attacking the security forces—the RUC and the Army.
  Mr. John Carson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree

  813
  that the Secretary of State has made it clear to the House that he preferred to put responsibility for law and order more and more on the RUC? Would not he also agree that many areas, especially where Twomey was reported to have been seen in the company of the British Army, are non-go areas for the RUC?
  Mr. Orme: The House well understands that the hon. Gentleman is talking about difficult areas for policing. This is one of the problems we are trying to overcome. We are trying to get the police into those areas. But no restriction was put on the Army. If anyone was operating outside the law, he would be arrested and handed over to the RUC.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon mentioned the number of people released from detention who returned to violence. Of course the Government are concerned about this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 5 per cent. This is an accurate figure at present. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although that figure is regrettable, it is considerably lower than the figure for people released in Britain for what may be termed "normal" crime. The number of those who have returned to violence is very much higher than the 5 per cent. that we are talking about. We hope that the figure can be kept below that, but the present figures do not give the Government any concern as such.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) dealt particularly with the difficult situation in South Armagh. His logic was referred to earlier. However, his logic and the blinding reason he brings to bear on the situation does not measure up to the reality in South Armagh. He talked about an iron curtain, or an iron wall, or a division. One of the great problems in this area, which is not heavily populated, is that in certain key areas the population are hostile to the State and all it stands for. There is support there for certain activities. The security forces have to take that into account, apart from the terrain and the existence of the border.
  Reference has been made to the support we are getting from the Garda vis-a-vis the RUC at the moment. Passports, barriers and the blowing up of roads will not resolve this problem. There has to be a political solution that defuses the
  814
  situation. The terrorists must be defeated. That is why the Army is there, and that is what it will continue to do. However, we must move to a political solution.
  On the argument about gangsterism and people not taking part in political activity, the right hon. Gentleman said that at base the crimes were political. I ask him to reflect on this, because it means that he underwrites political status and special category prisoners.
  Mr. Powell: No, of course not.
  Mr. Orme: It does. The right hon. Gentleman does not do that personally, but this is the interpretation that will be placed upon it in Northern Ireland when we come to face this difficult problem next year, when the Government will be grappling with this problem.
  I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about detention. We hope this will mean that the two communities can start to work together and that the feeling of co-operation will spread right across Northern Ireland, including among the police and all other aspects of society. We believe that there has been some positive movement and we ask the House to support the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 22nd November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nominations of members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, Mr. Richard Luce be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Michael Marshall be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 15th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on House of Commons

  815
  (Services), Mr. Clement Freud be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Cyril Smith be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Shape.]

  COLLEGE OF ALL SAINTS (LONDON)
  11.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of the College of All Saints, which is greatly valued in my constituency and in the surrounding area and which is threatened with closure.
  The background to the situation, as I understand, is that to comply with national policy for a reduction in teacher training places the Church of England agreed to reduce the number of its student teacher places from 19,000 in 1971 to 10,000 in 1981.
  The Department of Education and Science, which has the final say in these matters, had previously proposed that three Church colleges should close. These were Culham in Oxfordshire, St. Peter's in Birmingham and Hockerill at Bishop Stortford. However, a Church education conference last Easter took the view that such closures should not be decided hastily and that a national strategy for Church colleges should be developed.
  The working party concerned with this matter ensured that representatives of the three colleges threatened with closure were heard, but the other colleges had to submit their views by written answers to a brief questionnaire.
  Therefore, it came as a complete bombshell when the working party reported in September recommending the closing of four colleges, of which All Saints in Tottenham, which had received no word of warning and had no opportunity to make representations, was one. Although the college immediately
  816
  asked to make personal representations to the Board of Education of the Church, this was refused.
  Considerable concern about the decision, and also about the procedure, followed, has been expressed by the maney people who know and value the work of All Saints. The matter was also subsequently raised at the recent meeting of the Church Synod on 5th December. As I understand the result of this meeting—I have had only a second-hand account over the telephone of what happened—apparently the decision of this further meeting was to give All Saints a deferred threat of closure. The college would be given an intake in 1976 and 1977 which would slightly reduce the annual intake of the other Church colleges for those two years. This would be without prejudice to the numbers already recommended for Church colleges in 1981.
  Although the Board of Education now accepts that All Saints should remain as an active institution, it agreed that the only way to enable All Saints to continue beyond 1981 was for the Department of Education and Science to increase the total allocation of teacher training colleges and Church colleges. I believe that the Board made certain suggestions as to how this might be done within the confines of the Department's policy. So, although the situation at All Saints is not as bleak as it appeared to be a week ago, it is still far from satisfactory with this merely probationary right to continue to exist.
  It surely is unreasonable to expect the college, alone of the Church colleges, to recruit students against a background of a continued, though deterred, threat of closure. This is all the more unreasonable in view of the unique contribution that the college is making in this inner-city area where the problems of a multi-cultural society are most acute. It is the only Anglican college in North London. One of the students has described it as "the Church in action" in North London. It has important specialisms, particularly in multi-cultural education, and its situation in a multi-racial district makes it especially suitable for this work. It is important that 75 per cent. of the students, when they leave the college, remain to teach in the London area.

  817
  Its basic teacher training course is strongly geared to the needs of those working with children from deprived urban areas, and a new diploma in multiracial education has just been approved by the Department of Education and Science.
  Strong moves have been made in recent years to diversify courses, and work is now being done for social workers and youth leaders. Much in-service training is organised by the college, and there are plans for a professional in-service training centre immediately adjacent to the college, which can serve Haringey, in which it is situated, and its adjacent London boroughs.
  A joint academic working party of staff from All Saints and the Tottenham College of Technology is planning joint courses, some of which have already started, whereby staff from each college work together on certain courses for the benefit of the students. The students themselves voluntarily undertake a wide range of social work in the surrounding community—after-school clubs, tapes for the blind, English teaching of immigrants, the remedial teaching of gipsies, help for elderly people, and so on.
  An important factor in the life of the college is that many of the students are already resident in the area and know its problems at first hand. Here, I should declare a personal interest, since my own daughter took a teacher training and B.Ed. course at All Saints and is now teaching at a multi-racial school in the borough.
  In this connection, an ex-student makes an important point when she writes:
  "There is still a shortage of teachers in many parts of the country, including London, where many teachers cannot afford to live, especially when they marry and wish to buy a house. So London depends heavily on colleges like All Saints to provide a supply of young teachers who have formed their friendships and wish to stay in the area as long as they can afford to do so. The challenge of working in a multiracial and deprived area is immense, but many past members of the college face it with great spirit."
  The local education committee and Haringey council strongly back the college and have passed unanimous resolutions of support for All Saints, as also has Waltham Forest Education Committee. The Bishops of London and Edmonton—with their first-hand know-
  818
  ledge of the area—have expressed themselves strongly against any closure. MPs from all the neighbouring constituencies over a wide area, some of whom would have been here tonight if the debate had not been so late, have also asked to be associated with this debate.
  They are my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), whose constituencies closely adjoin the college, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), and my hon. Friend the Member from as far afield as Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman).
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has her own special knowledge of the difficulties of education in London, will, I am sure, agree that AP Saints should not remain in this invidious position. As she knows, the final decision about the future of the college rests with her Department. I recently took a deputation of education committee members to see her colleague in another place, and we were very kindly received. I hope very much that now that the college has been given a limited reprieve by the Church the Minister will be able to make the crucial decision about its continued viability as quickly as possible and enable it to continue the work that it is doing without fear for the future.
  I urge my hon. Friend to use any influence she can to this end. I know that she cannot say anything definite about this tonight, because the decision has yet to be made, but I hope that she will be able, in reply, to make some kind of helpful comment to the college. Everyone concerned is extremely worried about the present situation and a word of hope from her would be very much appreciated. I ask my hon. Friend to throw out some lifeline to a college which is doing an excellent job and which has very great support. It gives to the local community and it helps the local community, and the local community very much wants it to continue.
  11.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): I have long known of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) in this college and she has pleaded most eloquently that it be allowed to continue its role in teacher

  819
  training. As my hon. Friend said, she has already led a deputation to see my noble Friend the Minister of State. The supporters of All Saints College—their numbers are considerable—are very fortunate in having a Member of Parliament who is so actively interested in its future. As she said, no decision has yet been taken by my right hon. Friend to stop teacher training at this college. Therefore, as has already been said, the purpose of this debate is to try to influence a decision that is pending rather than to change one that has been taken.
  The House may appreciate a few comments by way of background. For almost three years the Department, local authorities, voluntary bodies and the colleges themselves have been engaged in a reorganisation of the colleges of education. The reorganisation has two aims: first, to bring teacher education into closer contact with higher education generally and, secondly, to reduce substantially the number of teacher training places so as to bring the output of trained teachers into line with forecast demand.
  Originally, the intention was to reduce the number of places to 80,000 in 1981 from a present figure of 114,000. In March of this year, however, the number of places to be planned for 1981 was further reduced to 60,000 on the evidence of the latest forecasts of the birth rate. This further reduction exacerbated the difficulties of the reorganisation and made it inevitable that teacher training would have to cease at a number of colleges, both maintained and voluntary. The Church of England entirely accepts that its colleges must bear a fair share of the reduction and their allocation for 1981, at about 10,000 places or about one-sixth of the total, reflects their historical share.
  The Church of England Board of Education has drawn up proposals for the future of its colleges based on the 1981 allocation of about 10,000 places. The proposals recommend that teacher training should be given up as soon as practicable at three colleges—Hockerill College in Hertfordshire, Sarum St. Michael
  820
  in Wiltshire, and St. Peter's Saltley in Birmingham. But the College of All Saints has been singled out for rather different treatment. It is not proposed that teacher training should cease there as soon as may be but that students should be admitted in September 1976 and September 1977. With four-year courses the last students would leave the college in the summer of 1981 when, unless other arrangements are made, the college would close for teacher training. The Board of Education is suggesting that it could be kept open after 1981 by my right hon. Friend agreeing to increase the Church's 1981 allocation beyond 10,000 places.
  These proposals have been received only within the last few days and officials of my Department are to discuss them with the Board of Education tomorrow. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that there is very little that I can say about the likely outcome of the discussion at this stage.
  However, I should like to add that I happily acknowledge the value of the work done by All Saints in, as my hon. Friend said, a densely populated and deprived urban area which is also multi-racial, and it has made a very big contribution in that respect. Sadly, however, some colleages must give up teacher training and in this there is inevitably some loss. Whether, in the end, All Saints must be one of these or whether it is thought right to keep it going and some way is found to do this remains to be seen. Decisions about the Church colleges are now urgent, if only to end the anxiety which uncertainty brings to all involved, not least the college staffs. Time must, however, be allowed for those concerned to make representations to my right hon. Friend if they wish, but that done, he will reach his conclusions about All Saints and the other Church colleges as quickly as possible. I shall see that my hon. Friend is informed of the decision as soon as it is made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dogs (Experiments)
  Dogs (Experiments)
  Political Violence
  Political Violence
  Television Services (Wales)
  Television Services (Wales)
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Tobacco (Sales to Children)
  Tobacco (Sales to Children)
  Wage Compensation (Court Attendance)
  Wage Compensation (Court Attendance)
  Prisons (Psychiatric Units)
  Prisons (Psychiatric Units)
  Law Centres
  Law Centres
  Government Counsel
  Government Counsel
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Bail
  Bail
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1965
  RACE RELATIONS ACT 1965
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Workers (Career Structure)
  Agricultural Workers (Career Structure)
  Milk
  Milk
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Production Costs
  Production Costs
  Iceland (Fishing Dispute)
  Iceland (Fishing Dispute)
  Home-grown Food
  Home-grown Food
  Beef
  Beef
  Cod Supplies
  Cod Supplies
  Capital Taxation
  Capital Taxation
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Investment
  Investment
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Land Drainage Maps
  Land Drainage Maps
  Labelling
  Labelling
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Beam Trawling
  Beam Trawling
  Horned Sheep
  Horned Sheep
  Food Stocks
  Food Stocks
  Arboreal Diseases
  Arboreal Diseases
  Soft Wheats
  Soft Wheats
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  House Building
  House Building
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Slaugh termen (Pay)
  Slaugh termen (Pay)
ENVIRONMENT
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  M25
  M25
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Railway Electrification Costs
  Railway Electrification Costs
  Housing Stocks (OECD Countries)
  Housing Stocks (OECD Countries)
  Noise Insulation (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Noise Insulation (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Rail Fares
  Rail Fares
  Bus Fares
  Bus Fares
  National Bus Company (Investment)
  National Bus Company (Investment)
  Housing
  Housing
  Ordnance Survey Charges
  Ordnance Survey Charges
  Driving and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea
  Driving and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea
  Sports Footwear
  Sports Footwear
  Sports Aid Foundation
  Sports Aid Foundation
  House Purchasers (Local Authority Sponsorship)
  House Purchasers (Local Authority Sponsorship)
INDUSTRY
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Shipbuilding (Government Aid)
  Shipbuilding (Government Aid)
  Rhodesia (Mail)
  Rhodesia (Mail)
  Location of Industry
  Location of Industry
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  RAF Maintenance Units
  RAF Maintenance Units
  Icelandic Fishing (Protection Vessels)
  Icelandic Fishing (Protection Vessels)
  Pensions
  Pensions
ENERGY
  Frigg Offshore Gasfield
  Frigg Offshore Gasfield
  Motor Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  Motor Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  LOCH NESS (WILDLIFE PROTECTION)
  LOCH NESS (WILDLIFE PROTECTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Savings (Index-Linked Scheme)
  Savings (Index-Linked Scheme)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Metrication
  Metrication
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Digestive Diseases
  Digestive Diseases
  Women's Aid Centres
  Women's Aid Centres
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  National Health Service (Staff)
  National Health Service (Staff)
  Hospital Beds (Birmingham)
  Hospital Beds (Birmingham)
  Birmingham Area Health Authority (Staff)
  Birmingham Area Health Authority (Staff)
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  "Help With Heating Costs" (Leaflet)
  "Help With Heating Costs" (Leaflet)
  Hostels (Young People)
  Hostels (Young People)
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapy
  Nurses and Ancillary Staff (Cheshire)
  Nurses and Ancillary Staff (Cheshire)
  Widow's Pension (Member's Correspondence)
  Widow's Pension (Member's Correspondence)
  Childbirth
  Childbirth
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Tobacco (Sales to Children)
  Tobacco (Sales to Children)
  Male Beneficiaries
  Male Beneficiaries
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Approved Schemes
  Approved Schemes
TRADE
  France
  France
  Airports
  Airports
  Heathrow
  Heathrow
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  Chrysler UK Ltd.
  St. Christopher's Motorists' Security Ltd.
  St. Christopher's Motorists' Security Ltd.
WALES
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Nominated Bodies
  Nominated Bodies
  Housing
  Housing
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Communist Party (London District)
  Communist Party (London District)
  IRA Cease-fire
  IRA Cease-fire
  Law Enforcement
  Law Enforcement
  Mullaghduff and Aghnacloy (Border Crossings)
  Mullaghduff and Aghnacloy (Border Crossings)
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
  Farms (Border Areas)
  Farms (Border Areas)
  Compensation (Prisoners and Terrorism Victims)
  Compensation (Prisoners and Terrorism Victims)
  Murder and Armed Robberies
  Murder and Armed Robberies
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Illiteracy
  Adult Illiteracy
  Artistic Works (Exports)
  Artistic Works (Exports)
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Immigrant Children
  Immigrant Children
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
  Local Authority Schemes
  Local Authority Schemes
  British Library
  British Library
  University Candidates (Language Students)
  University Candidates (Language Students)
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Llanwern Steel Works (Dispute)
  Llanwern Steel Works (Dispute)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Community Industries
  Community Industries
  Ormskirk, Kirkby and Merseyside
  Ormskirk, Kirkby and Merseyside
SCOTLAND
  Secondary Schools, Dundee
  Secondary Schools, Dundee
  Diseases
  Diseases
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Social Work Training
  Social Work Training
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (ROME MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (ROME MEETING)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  GOVERMENT ECONOMIC SERVICE
  GOVERMENT ECONOMIC SERVICE
  LEGISLATION
  LEGISLATION
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Residents Abroad
  British Residents Abroad
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Passports
  Passports
  Diplomatic Missions (Staffs)
  Diplomatic Missions (Staffs)
  Embassy Officials (Children's School Fees)
  Embassy Officials (Children's School Fees)
  UN Centre for Transnational Corporations
  UN Centre for Transnational Corporations

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

SRI LANKA: NATIONALISATION OF TEA ESTATES
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further discussions they have had with the Government of Sri Lanka about compensation for the nationalisation of British-owned tea estates, and whether they will state the factors which they consider should be taken into account in deciding the sums payable to the former proprietors.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have sought and obtained assurances from the Government of Sri Lanka that they will pay compensation to the former British owners of nationalised estates in accordance with international law. It is for the Government of Sri Lanka to decide the basis on which the compensation will be assessed and the amount to be paid is a matter for agreement between them and the companies concerned.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether in the opinion of the Government this compensation ought to be determined in accordance with the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 12th December 1974? Does he agree that in assessing what that Charter calls appropriate compensation the circumstances which the State considered pertinent might include costs arising from the presence of large numbers of ex-patriate workers brought in by the British tea companies, the cost to Sri Lanka's economy of its dependence
1058
on one particular crop, aid the ecological damage caused by the destruction of forests in the tea-growing areas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, those considerations are for the Government of Sri Lanka to take into account if they so decide. Certainly at this stage it is not for any other Government, including the Government of the United Kingdom, to indicate to Sri Lanka what it should do about the Charter adopted by the United Nations to which the noble Lord referred.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether the Sri Lanka Government have said that the compensation should be paid in rupees and that the British companies are going to be allowed to transmit only the interest from that compensation back to the United Kingdom? What is the Government's attitude to this arrangement?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not anticipate the result of the negotiations between the companies and the Government of Sri Lanka. We believe that the negotiations will start in January, a few weeks from now. The question of the exchange position and the arrangements for the transfer of compensation will have to form part of those negotiations.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their best to protect British interests there in accordance with what is right and just?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I indicated in my substantive reply, we expect that the question of compensation will be settled according to international law. While not engaging directly in the negotiations, we shall be properly concerned that British interests affecting British nationals are observed by the Government of Sri Lanka; and I see no reason why this will not be the case.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is this issue not complicated by the fact that the Government of Sri Lanka have been very bitter about the whole issue since the time when the Tamils were imported when we colonised Sri Lanka?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is no doubt that questions of this kind have always been complicated by historical factors. One hopes that in the negotiations which are pending both sides will get down to effecting a mutually agreeable and acceptable basis of compensation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether Great Britain gives Sri Lanka any grants; and, if so, whether it would not be better to give some of those grants to the people concerned who have been dispossessed of their tea estates?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the purpose of development aid is not to recoup expropriated companies; it is to assist the people of the receiving country.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, with regard to the British interests referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, does not the Minister agree that, after taking into account the circumstances I mentioned and deducting those costs from the market value of the tea estates owned by the British, the amount of compensation so calculated might well be nil?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not agree anything of the sort. I could neither agree nor disagree. It is for the Government of Sri Lanka to negotiate with the representatives of the Ceylon Association and come to an agreement on the basis and the fact of compensation. It is not for us to do so.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, will the Government keep their eyes on this problem of the imported labour, the Tamil labour, and see what they can do to safeguard their interests? They freely came to labour in the industry in Sri Lanka and, besides giving employment to themselves, contributed very largely to the economy of that country.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord said. I repeat that this is an independent, sovereign country dealing with an issue of some importance to itself. This country is a member of the Commonwealth and we are in constant and
1060
friendly touch with Sri Lanka, as we are with every other member of the Commonwealth.

LONDON UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
3.14 p.m.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: 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 have made inquiries of London Transport about the recent series of articles in a London evening newspaper which disclosed a serious deterioration in the London Underground system.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the main criticisms in the series of articles in the London Evening Standard are directed to the environmental quality of the London Underground, so it is for the London Transport Executive itself in the first place to evaluate and react to the criticisms. Much has been done and is still being done to improve the environmental quality of the Underground, but both London Transport's operating costs and its capital investment are already heavily subsidised, and it is difficult for the Greater London Council, in whom statutory responsibility for the London Transport Executive is vested, to find even greater resources at the present time.
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, may I seek the indulgence of the House for a moment in order to thank my noble friend Baroness Stedman for her reply and to congratulate her on her promotion to the Front Bench? In referring to the costs of the subsidy, may I ask whether she considers that careful note should be taken and, perhaps, further representations should be made? The capital cost of the Underground system—except for the Fleet Line—has already been paid off. Does my noble friend agree that it is still the cheapest way to move a large number of people? Further, despite what my noble friend said, is she aware that the efficiency of the Tube has deteriorated from being at one time the greatest and most efficient system to being dilapidated and, in many senses, a subterranean slum?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I also crave the indulgence of the House and thank my noble friend for his congratulations, and reciprocate them in the sense that I believe this is the first time my noble friend has asked a Question in your Lordships' House. Regarding the costs of London Transport, of course they have tremendous financial constraints. On the revenue side, it is estimated that this year the deficit on the London Transport executive account will be £93 million, and of this some £17 million is attributable to the Underground operations. The Government are meeting £53 million of this through the Transport Supplementary Grant, and the remaining £40 million will fall on the rate fund. So, until fares at least match the costs, careful thought must be given to any proposals which might further increase this terrific burden.
The grant by the Greater London Council towards the capital expenditure on Underground works is also totalling £31 million during the current year, 70 per cent. of which will be ranking for expenditure under the Transport Supplementary Grant. But it is interesting to note that, in the entire series of articles in the London newspaper, there was never any suggestion or criticism of the efficiency of the running of London Transport. London Transport have to get their priorities right. Up to this time, they have considered the careful, rapid and quick movement of London's population about London to be their first priority, and have put that over and above the reconditioning of the stations. They have the right to decide their own priorities.

CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent severe storms in the English Channel, they are prepared to reconsider their decision on a Channel Tunnel.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the possi-
1062
bility of disruption of cross-Channel traffic by had weather has always been one of the stronger arguments in favour of a Channel Tunnel, but there is no prospect of our reviving the project in present economic circumstances.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the night of 1st December six cross-Channel ferries, carrying thousands of passengers and hundreds of cars and lorries, were forced to spend many hours tossed about on the high seas outside Dover Harbour, in gales of over 100 m.p.h. and driving rain? I Does she think this is a civilised way of crossing the English Channel?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I do not think it is a very civilised way to cross the Channel; but we do not yet have control over the weather.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Next Session!
Baroness BIRK: Quite right; next Session! My Lords, my noble friend must remember also that fog prevents' planes coming in to land. I inquired today of the tourist authority and they assure me that because of the very low cost of travel by the ferries, people understand the hazards and are prepared to wait. They still think it is worth their while and their money.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, in view of the fact that the existence of the Channel Tunnel would be of enormous benefit to all the Common Market countries, will the Government think about raising this question with the Council of Ministers in order that the cost may be shared by all Common Market countries in the future?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the possibility of using EEC funds for the Channel Tunnel was discussed in the European Parliament in February, and the Commission made it clear that they had no funds to devote to the construction of the Channel Tunnel. We would consider carefully any firm European proposal which involved a genuine cost sharing. But that is a slightly different question.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask whether it would be true to say that the only reason the Government have no control over the weather is that it was not in the Manifesto?
Lord HOY: My Lords, because of all these storms at sea, would my noble friend consider taking this complaint to another Lord, who might be able to solve the problem?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the cross-Channel ferries were so cheap that people wanted to use them. Can she tell us the cost per mile of travelling from Dover to Calais?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, without making it up, I could not do that off the cuff. I will let the noble Lord have the information later. I can tell him that it is considerably cheaper than flying, or, if we had one, of using the Channel Tunnel.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that fog is by no means confined to the English Channel and that it has even been known to penetrate your Lordships' House? Could she give an assurance that all the vast construction work so far carried out at both ends of the Tunnel will be kept on a maintenance basis until the day comes—as come it must—when the work will be resumed?
Baroness BIRK:My Lords, the works are being kept on a maintenance basis at a cost of £7,500 a year for the next few years. After that a decision will be taken on what is to happen. We are very well aware of this problem.

TOBACCO AND BEAGLE DOGS EXPERIMENTS: ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REPORT
3.22 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Advisory Committee to which was referred the question of the experiments made on beagle dogs with tobacco and synthetic tobacco smoking has now reported to the Home Secretary and, if so, what is the nature of their report and the conclusions reached, and whether the Report will be published.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, yes. The Committee have recommended that the experiment which has been in progress for three years at ICI should be allowed to continue, but that authority to begin similar experiments elsewhere should be refused. They found nothing to criticise in the treatment of the dogs on grounds of cruelty and they rejected the argument that animals should not be used to find ways of alleviating "avoidable" suffering in man. They were satisfied that the scientific justification for the experiment existed at the time the experiment began and that, in the case of an experiment which has been in progress for three years, such results can be expected to be obtained as would make it wrong to terminate it prematurely. The latest state of scientific knowledge, however, does not justify the beginning of any similar experiments.
My right honourable friend has accepted the Committee's recommendations and is taking the necessary steps to implement them. With the leave of the House, I will arrange for the text of the Report of the Committee, with the exception of annexes, the publication of which would infringe commercial confidentiality, to be circulated in the Official Report.
Following is the text of the Report:
"19th November 1975.
Dear Secretary of State,
You have referred to the Advisory Committee on the Administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 two cases involving the use of dogs to test a tobacco substitute. One experiment has been in progress for over three years and the other has not yet started. In both cases the licensees concerned, Dr. Conning and Dr. Clark, already held the necessary licence and certificates under the Act and to that extent the situation is unusual since the Committee's advice is normally sought only in respect of experiments for which consent has not yet been given.
2. Dr. Conning's work at the Central Toxicology Laboratory of Imperial Chemical Industries at Alderley Park, Cheshire, aroused considerable public and Parliamentary interest at the beginning of the year following an article and photographs in a Sunday newspaper and it was largely because of this that the matter was drawn to our attention. Dr. Clark's proposed work at Inveresk Research International, Midlothian, has not attracted similar publicity in England, though it has in Scotland. Since both projects have many identical or similar features—indeed we understand that Dr. Clark designed and inaugurated the ICI project—much of what we say applies to both.
3. As we see it three distinct questions arise for consideration: (A) whether the dogs at Alderley Park are being 'treated with cruelty' in the ordinary sense of the word, (B) whether it is morally justifiable to train dogs—or indeed any other animal—to lead an unnatural life in order to discover a safer substitute for tobacco and (C) whether there is a reasonable likelihood of these experiments leading to or helping in the discovery of such a substitute and whether it is reasonably necessary to use dogs for the purpose.
The cruelty question
4. In the ICI experiment forty-eight beagle dogs are used. The dog's muzzle fits into a fixed airtight mask. The mask is equipped with an airway, a cigarette holder and a valve to connect the dog to one or the other. The valve is operated electronically to a predetermined set of parameters determined by the dog's own breathing pattern and the exposure to smoke which it is desired to achieve. During exposure the animals are provided with a sling which acts as a kind of hammock if the animal wishes to relax, but otherwise allows the animal to stand or sit. There is a head restraint, but it allows the dog to move its head freely, and—as some of us saw—occasionally to withdraw it entirely from the mask. Drinking water is within easy reach of the dogs. Twelve dogs inhale tobacco smoke, twelve the smoke from the experimental new smoking material, twelve the smoke of a 55 per cent./45 per cent. mixture of the two and twelve breathe air but are fitted with the mask and subject to the same restraints as the rest. The dogs that smoke smoke 30 cigarettes a day over a six-hour period, 5 days a week. They receive a two-second puff of smoke every minute (with fresh air during the interval) and have a forty-five minute break in the middle of the day.
5. A number of members of the Committee, including the chairman, visited Alderley Park in three separate groups to see the experiment for themselves and to talk with those concerned with it. They would like to record their appreciation of the ready co-operation at all times of the Company and its staff. We have no hesitation in saying that in so far as any reports which have appeared in the Press or elsewhere suggest that these dogs are being tortured or are in pain or are being subjected to cruel treatment they are wholly misleading. It is, of course, true that they are not leading an ordinary dog's life but then they are not ordinary dogs. They were specially bred by the Company at Alderly Park for laboratory use and only those which proved temperamentally suited to the constraints involved in the experiment were used. The dogs had clearly established a good relationship with their handlers whom we saw and to whom we spoke and they showed not signs of fear or distress. We would indeed have been surprised if we had found anything to criticise on grounds of cruelty since the experiment has from the outset been regularly inspected by Home Office Inspectors.
The moral question
6. It is a requirement of the 1876 Act that every experiment under the Act must be per-
1066
formed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering. It is also provided that experiments not involving complete anaesthesia should not be performed on cats or dogs unless it is essential for the success of the experiment that these particular species should be used.
7. The case presented by ICI on which the licences and certificates were granted may be summarised as follows:
Each year a large number of people die or suffer from lung cancer, bronchitis, emphysema and cardio-vascular diseases mainly attributable to or exacerbated by smoking, particularly cigarette smoking. Steps have been and continue to be taken to persuade people to give up or curtail the habit. It must, however, be accepted that the habit will persist and that consequently the suffering and death it causes will continue on an appreciable scale for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances it is very desirable that a smoking material be developed which has no or demonstrably fewer toxic effects than tobacco. The ICI and other similar experiments are steps on the road to the successful development of such a substitute or substitutes, and so are aimed at the saving or prolonging of life or the alleviation of suffering. It is essential to try out any substitute on some animals in order to find out whether or not it has any noxious side effects and dogs are the species best suited for the purpose.
8. The argument against this thesis which is generally advanced is that the suffering referred to in the Act ought to be interpreted by the Home Office as excluding avoidable suffering, a category into which suffering arising from the self-inflicted exposure of lungs to tobacco smoke clearly falls. The way to reduce the incidence of disease associated with smoking is either to prohibit smoking or to make it more difficult for people to smoke by banning the manufacture or import of cigarettes. If despite all such measures and constant warning people go on smoking they have only themselves to blame and should pay the price of their own folly.
9. We are not in fact at all sure that it is right to regard all suffering from smoking as self-inflicted, for there is some evidence that a pregnant woman who smokes to excess may hazard the life or well-being of her unborn child and that many people, including children, live, work and spend their leisure in a smoke-laden atmosphere which may be injurious to them and is not of their making or seeking. But even apart from this consideration we think that it would be wrong in theory and impossible in practice to put such an artificial limitation on the meaning of the word 'suffering' as used in the Act. It is probably true that a great deal of suffering may be avoided or mitigated by the adoption of a 'sensible' way of life. Obesity, venereal disease and injuries in road accidents are obvious examples of largely avoidable suffering. It must be remembered, however, that it is no part of the function of the medical profession to make moral judgements in determining whether or not or how

1067
to treat the conditions which come to their notice. It is moreover often in practice simply not possible to determine with certainty whether a particular condition is 'natural' or 'self-inflicted'.
10. We recognise, of course, that any use of any animals for experimental purposes raises issues on which widely divergent views arc held. We have not been asked to express a view on these broader issues, a consideration of which would lead us far beyond these particular experiments, and all that we would say is that so far as we can see there is nothing in these experiments (save the fortuitous publicity attaching to them) which distinguishes them in any relevant way from many other experiments for which authority is commonly given. It follows that if there had been no doubt that the 'scientific' question could be answered in a sense favourable to ICI we would see no reason to advise a withdrawal of the authority.
The 'scientific' question
11. Even before we heard expert scientific evidence some of us doubted whether an experiment involving only 48 dogs over perhaps 3 to 5 years was likely to yield conclusive results which, coupled with other experiments not involving dogs, would justify marketing a product designed to replace a known toxic substance the effects of which became evident only after 20 or 30 years of habitual use. It looked, that is to say, as though experiments with more dogs over a longer period might be needed to achieve worthwhile results.
12. In accordance with the wish which you expressed in referring the question to us we consulted the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, which we shall refer to in this report as the Hunter Committee after its Chairman, Dr. R. B. Hunter, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. The initial evidence which they gave us left us in no doubt on two points:

(a) that when the applications were made and certificates granted it was entirely reasonable to think that it was only by the use of dogs that tobacco substitutes could be satisfactorily tested; but

(b) that as a result of further knowledge gained by the Committee in the course of the last two years or so they had formed the view that adequate toxicity tests of tobacco substitutes could be made without the use of dogs.

13. In their 'guidelines' for the assistance of manufacturers of tobacco substitutes published shortly after they had given evidence to us the Hunter Committee set out three stages of testing which they consider necessary Stage I involves' short term' acute studies in rats and monkeys. Stage 2 involves 'short term' clinical tests in man. Stage 3 involves "long term" studies in various small animals —i.e. skin painting in mice, teratological studies in rats and inhalational studies in rats and a second species which could be hamsters. In his evidence given to us Dr. Hunter did, however, say that although dogs were not now thought necessary in toxicity tests it might be that a case could be made out for their we for other purposes—e.g. cardio-vascular tests—and
1068
that it was for that reason that the guidelines while not mentioning dogs did not specifically exclude them.
14. The evidence given by the Hunter Committee obviously raised a doubt whether what we have called the 'scientific' question ought now to be answered favourably to ICI. Accordingly we put before ICI the substance of that evidence and invited their comments on it. We then put their comments to the Hunter Committee for them to answer. Copies of the correspondence and of the guidelines are annexed to this report. The main arguments on each side are summarised in the following two paragraphs.
15. ICI said that in their view it was essential that any programme of experimental investigation of a tobacco substitute should include investigation of the effects of inhaling undiluted smoke through the mouth for a large part of the life span of the animal used—in close approximation to the smoking pattern in man. This limited the choice of species to the dog and the primate. They gave various reasons for considering that the dog was preferable one of which was that the dog is liable to develop pulmonary and cardio-vascular disease similar to man and is the only species so far in which lung tumours similar to one of the types found in man have been produced by direct exposure to tobacco smoke. They said they had noted no recent publications supporting the view that rodents alone were adequate in an examination of the inhalation toxicity of tobacco substitutes and did not see how such a conclusion could be reached in the present state of knowledge in which the nature of so many of the biological reactions to smoking is still obscure.
16. The Hunter Committee in its reply pointed out that in its guidelines it had concentrated on the pathological effects on the respiratory tract and lung function. It reiterated—and supported by reference to recent experiments—its view that the use of the rat and the hamster in inhalational toxicity studies could produce valid comparative results within two years which it would be willing to accept as evidence in its assessment of substitute tobacco. It dealt with ICI's point as to pulmonary and cardio-vascular disease in the following paragraph which we would quote in full.
'The Committee would not disagree with ICI's statement that the dog may be liable to develop pulmonary and cardio-vascular disease after a sufficient exposure period to tobacco smoke. As the animal is amenable to dosing with undiluted smoke, the choice of the dog is understandable. The Committee appreciates that the dog is a suitable model in respect of the production of squamous cell bronchial carcinoma similar to those found in man but not found in smoke-exposed smaller mammals. The Independent Scientific Committee has not in its guidelines for animal studies specified cardio-vascular end points as it is the Committee's opinion that the relationship between cigarette smoking and cardio-vascular disease has not been adequately demonstrated in animal models'
17. In the light of what we have set out in the last five paragraphs the giving of an answer to what we have called the' scientific' question is not altogether easy. The certificates in question were allowed on the footing that a tobacco substitute could not be safely marketed unless it had been 'tried out' on dogs. This was undoubtedly a reasonable view to take when the applications were made and acceded to. Now, however, the Hunter Committee has said that dogs need not be used for 'toxicity' testing of a tobacco substitute. The scientific advisers of ICI do not agree with this view; but we assume that the Home Secretary in considering any new application for a licence to use dogs in experiments with regard to a tobacco substitute would proceed on the footing that the view of the Hunter Committee was correct. Dr. Clark has not yet started work on his project at the Inveresk Research International and we, therefore, recommend that as matters stand he should not be allowed to proceed with it. If he still wishes to go on with it he should make a fresh application for the necessary certificates based on an alleged need to use dogs for some purpose other than' toxicity' testing. If and when any such application is made it will have to be considered on its merits entirely de novo.
18. The ICI experiments on the other hand stand on a different footing. They have been in progress for over three years and as we have said we are satisfied that they involve no cruelty to the dogs. It is true that the relevant authority was granted on a view as to the need to use dogs for 'toxicity' testing which may have been superseded by later experience; but even so we do not think that the Home Secretary would be justified in halting the experiments, with the result that the work and money already put into them would be wasted, unless he was fully satisfied that the experiments when completed could not result in the acquisition of knowledge which would be useful for alleviating suffering. In face of what the Hunter Committee says in paragraph 5 of its replies to the comments of ICI quoted above we do not see how the Home Secretary could be so satisfied. Indeed Dr. Hunter himself in the course of his evidence told us that it was his personal view that the ICI experiments should be allowed to continue. Accordingly we recommend that Dr. Conning be allowed to continue his work under the terms of the licences and certificates he holds, subject as in all cases to periodical inspection by the Cruelty to Animals Inspectorate.
19. The members of your Advisory Committee are unanimous in both recommendations. All have seen this report and have asked me to sign as their Chairman.
Your sincerely,
(Signed) Geoffrey Cross".
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Government would consider the smoking of synthetic tobacco a suit-
1070
alternative employment for greyhounds which they propose to make compulsorily redundant?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is one of many matters I think we can confidently look forward to hearing about in the debate next week.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, is this Advisory Committee with its lay members now meeting more frequently?—because it used to be said that it met so infrequently that it was not as useful as it ought to be.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords. I think that in the future there may well be rather more references to the Committee than there have been in the past.

CHRISTMAS RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a Statement about the Christmas Recess. Subject to the progress of Business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Friday, 19th December, and return on Tuesday, 13th January. Perhaps I might say a word of explanation about this. The Sitting on Friday, 19th December, will be a formal one for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill and Royal Assent. Since Thursday's Sitting will be the last full day before the Recess, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House should sit at 11 o'clock in the morning of that day.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one point? She said that the House will sit at 11 o'clock on the Friday, but I hone the House will also sit at 11 o'clock on the Thursday.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has misunderstood me. I said that the House will sit at 11 o'clock on Thursday. I am afraid I cannot at the moment say exactly what time we shall sit on Friday because we are not quite sure when we shall receive the Business we need from another place. I hope it will be in the morning.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision in respect to school-leaving dates and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MONEYLENDERS (CROWN AGENTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
OECD SUPPORT FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1975
3.26 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1975, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
The annual consideration of this Order in your Lordships' House has, over the years, become identified with a debate on recruiting, discipline, conditions of service and morale of Her Majesty's Forces. This debate has always been the occasion for the most informed and rational discussions of Service personnel questions—an important area all too often overlooked during general Defence debates, when policy and strategy matters take pride of place. Only two weeks ago, however, your Lordships had the opportunity during the debates on the gracious Speech to discuss some of these matters, and I do not honestly believe we could add much of value today. As I said at
1072
that time, the morale of our Forces is good and this, in my opinion, is of prime importance. We should all, in these difficult times, be especially careful of what we say about Defence matters. Rumours and speculation are the enemies of good morale.
Today's Order seeks to continue the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts for a further year. One need look no further than Northern Ireland to see that discipline in our Armed Forces is excellent. This in turn must in no small way be a reflection of the equity and sensibility of these codes of discipline. I have every confidence they will continue to prove as effective in the future as they have been in the past.
Next year your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider the 1975 Armed Forces Bill, which will seek to introduce, among other things, measures relating to summary powers of punishment; revised powers over civilians, which includes of course dependants of all personnel (service or civilian) serving with Her Majesty's Forces abroad; and—I am sure this will be of general interest to many noble Baronesses, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, whom I am glad to see is in her place—to make the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, the Women's Royal Naval Service and their reserves legally members of Her Majesty's naval forces, and to apply the Naval Discipline Acts to them. As the noble Baroness will have noticed already, this point is dealt with in Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Bill we propose to discuss. This will bring them into line with the Women's Services of the other branches of the Armed Forces. Again, however, I would not propose to discuss any of these things in detail today. They will undoubtedly be very fully debated when the Bill comes to your Lordships' House for consideration.
The defence of this country and the wellbeing of its Armed Forces have always been of paramount importance to your Lordships. I am quite certain that many of us are bewildered and perhaps anxious about the various newspaper and magazine reports of impending large-scale cuts in defence spending. I am equally certain that, seeing a Defence subject on the Order Paper today, many of your Lordships would like to air your views on

1073
it. If so, then so be it; but there will be nothing new that I can say in reply. We cannot debate media mumblings and possible misinformation. We must await the outcome of the Government's Public Expenditure Review. Then, and only then, will we have the hard facts. Armed with facts and figures, a discussion of real substance could then be held. Of course your Lordships are masters of your own House, and if at that time enough of you consider a Defence debate necessary there is little doubt that one will be arranged. In the cause of informed Defence opinion I am, as your Lordships know, always more than willing to stand here and accept your brickbats and your very occasional bouquets. But today is not the right time and the Service Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order not the right vehicle for such a confrontation. I am certain that your Lordships will understand. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1975, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.—(Lord-Winter bottom.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will welcome the statement which the Minister has just made, and will congratulate him on the amazing brevity with which he succeeded in making it. I hope very much that I can match him. As he said, we discussed Defence on the third day of the debate on the gracious Speech, and I agree with him that we should perhaps try to restrain our natural inclination to stray from the strict words of the Motion, motivated by the deeply-felt misgivings and sincere worries which are certainly felt on this side of the House and, I believe, shared by many on the other side. Clearly, the Acts must continue, so we readily agree to the Motion. But, equally, it seems sensible in principle that the arrangements for an annual Review should be superseded by a more lasting and permanent arrangement which, no doubt, we shall be able to discuss more fully at the proper time.
I should like to make only two points. Let the Government be under no illusions as to what would be the effects on morale of any further cuts. The
1074
noble Lord has referred to the high morale existing in the Armed Forces. I am sorry to say that I cannot feel that the Government have greatly contributed to that, and I am bound to say that while the noble Lord may deplore the rumours which are flying around, the plain fact is that these rumours have originated from the activities of Ministers in the Government. However, I am not attempting to be contentious. I know that the Minister's heart is in the right place, and that is true also of his honourable friend in another place. We want to help them in their endeavours of fighting for the Armed Forces. May I finish by welcoming the offer, and I hope that the noble Lord means every word he says in promising that an early debate will be arranged, in the event of anything concrete being announced in the near future.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, the Minister has kindly referred to me in his opening remarks and, as I have given him notice that I want to raise a few points on the major change in regard to the Women's Royal Naval Service, perhaps he will not mind if I ask him a few questions. As I understand it, the WRNS and the Nursing Service connected with it are now to come under the Discipline Acts. I should like to recall the name of Dame Vera Laughton Matthews—a very redoubtable woman who reformed the WRNS after they had been totally disbanded after the First World War, and did a magnificent job. I think it would have been her wish today that the WRNS should come under the Naval Discipline Act. But I should like to know why that is now considered necessary, because I understand that in the past both Services have worked extremely well. I should like to ask the Minister what advantages will accrue to both of these Services.
I gather that until now there have been 24 different occupations for ratings, and I wonder whether these will be extended and what will be the conditions of service. It has been noted that recruitment is excellent for both Services and there are a large number of people waiting to join, but I should like to know whether extra categories will be added. At the present time, the WRNS are training to be pilots of helicopters. I should like to know

1075
whether, under the new conditions, they will be trained to be pilots of 'planes. At present, they are serving as cooks and stewards. Will they be allowed on ships, because if they are to have equality they should be able to go on ships in future. I gather that they would be very welcome on hydrographic surveys, because ships on this work go overseas for a considerable tame and that is not particularly favoured by married seamen.
Furthermore, what is to happen in regard to the headquarters, HMS "Dauntless" at Burghfield? For a great many years it has been suggested that they should go to HMS" Dryad". It seems to me that if the WRNS and the nurses are to integrate with the Navy, they should be nearer the sea than Reading and many other naval establishments. Surely it is much better for them to be integrated, than segregated as they are at present. Regrettably, there will be considerably fewer jobs overseas for these WRNS and nurses. Therefore, can they take their part in air traffic control or serve as naval attachés to Embassies? In 1956, a Select Committee was appointed to examine the Naval Discipline Act and to rewrite it to meet modern conditions. This Committee stated that they were impressed by the esprit de corps of the WRNS, and recommended that they should remain outside the Naval Discipline Act, considering,
"…that a code of discipline designed at sea was inappropriate to women."
I should like to know whether it is now more appropriate to women than it was in the past. In other words, what are the advantages of the change, and how was it decided?
Will the pay and conditions be the same as they are for men—there are differences at the present time—and what will he the change, if any, in the mode of address? Also, will there be equal pensions, which is not the case at present? There is one matter which I hope will definitely be changed. It was proposed in the Seebohm Report that there should be civilian welfare officers. I consider that this is inappropriate and that welfare officers should be trained in the Service concerned. They would have far more understanding of the problems in the Service in which they work. At the present time, at Yeovilton in Somerset there
1076
are 200 in training and 150 qualified officers, very many with good A-levels. I know that some of them are attached as writers to Embassies in New Delhi, Peking, Hong Kong, Naples and Oslo but I suggest that if we are to encourage highly qualified women to come in they must have better jobs than stewards, cooks and so on.
Through the kind hospitality of Her Majesty's Government, I had the opportunity to meet a great many women officers of the EEC countries and of NATO, and it appeared that women in their three Services had far better opportunities than the women in our Services. For example, in the case of Turkey, I met a married woman with three children who has been flying Turkish air force' planes for 17 years; and there were others from France, Norway, Denmark and so on with similar jobs. American women are now allowed to go to the equivalent of Sandhurst. I am a little worried, because it is said that disciplinary powers are to be exercised by commanding officers of the Royal Marines, the Army and the RAF for breaches of Service discipline. I will not go into the details, although I have taken the opportunity of obtaining them. Will these also affect the WRNS and the Nursing Service if they come under a similar discipline?
I do not know whether the noble Lord can reply today to my questions. I gave him notice that there is considerable anxiety because this is something completely new and if the noble Lord is able to reply today I shall be grateful. If not, perhaps I may have a reply later.
3.41 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the issue of the integration of the Women's Auxiliary Forces was raised on another occasion, but without success. Indeed, I can recall an occasion between 1950 and 1951 when the matter was raised in a Defence Committee and it has taken a long time for Government to reach a satisfactory conclusion. There is no reason at all why members of the Auxiliary Forces, particularly in the female sector, should not be fully integrated. However, that is a matter which we can debate at greater length on another occasion. I have not ventured to intervene in order to initiate a prolonged debate. I recall that when similar orders

1077
were submitted in another place in bygone years they always led to a prolonged debate on matters of discipline, recruitment, and, indeed, the purpose of the Army in particular. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Winter bottom that this is not the occasion for such a discussion.
There are, nevertheless, two observations that I ought to make on this occasion. First, I join my noble friend Lord Winterbottom and the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, in expressing our gratitude to the members of the Armed Forces, particularly in Ulster but also in other parts of the world—Hong Kong and in the European sphere. Prolonged residence in such places can be much more boring than being occupied in Ulster. Exercises, training, a variety of other expedients, occasional recreation and the like can, however satisfactory it may appear to be, be extremely boring. They deserve our praise, and I am sure that in making that observation I am expressing the view of every Member of your Lordships' House.
In my judgment, my second observation is much more important. It emerges from the current rumours about further reductions in Defence expenditure. This matter has been referred to in past Defence debates and it will he referred to again. However, it is becoming even more significant because of the pessimistic utterances, reported in the Press, that are emerging from NATO. Yesterday a speech was reported in The Times newspaper—it may have appeared in other periodicals—by the Chief of NATO Forces, Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton who expressed considerable disquiet about the situation. On the other hand, I read in this morning's Press that there are now more decisive proposals about coming to a conclusion on a mutual reduction of Forces. The suggestion is that we are ready to make such a proposition to the Soviet Union. I must confess that what I read this morning filled me with considerable disquiet.
For example, the suggestion was made that we should offer to abandon 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons. I was unaware that we had so many weapons of this kind, but that is because of the paucity of information to which I made reference on a previous occasion, which led
1078
to the suggestion that some of us might have discussions with representatives of NATO. In addition, there was a suggestion that the United States' Forces would be reduced by 25,000 and that in return for these concessions the Soviet Union would remove 70,000 members of their Tank Force. How the Russians would respond to these proposals is very difficult to estimate. On the other hand, I have also read that Mr. Brezhnev has asked—this appears to me to be a coincidence—for further détente. He wants peace in the world, yet significantly the Russians arc simultaneously increasing their military strength beyond any of their urgent, immediate or even foreseeable needs.
I am bound to say that I find the utmost difficulty in reconciling these statements. All that I can say is that we had better be mighty careful. I am expressing my own view, not those of my colleagues; they can speak for them-salves. Certainly I do not endorse the views expressed by some of my former and new colleagues in another place who are demanding even further Defence cuts. I am resolutely, definitely and earnestly opposed to any suggestions of that kind. In the world as it is at the present time —there is hardly one part of the globe where tension is absent, with all the possibilities that that envisages—we had better exercise the utmost caution. I recognise the economic difficulties, as does every Member of your Lordships' House. These economic difficulties, depressing as they are, cannot be shoved under the carpet. To do so would be an egregious blunder. Nevertheless, when it comes to the matter of security in a world where such tension exists, Defence is of the utmost importance. To those who ask for a reduction in our Defence expenditure, all I have to say to them is: Let us have no defence at all than inadequate defence. Do not let us indulge in pretence. We should never deceive ourselves. These are the only observations that I wish to make, since this is not the occasion for a prolonged debate. However, what I have just said ought to be said and I ask the Government to take note.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and by my noble friend Lord

1079
Strathcona Mount Royal. May I ask the Minister to do all that he can to expedite the truth about the rumours so that, if possible, our Armed Forces can have a happy Christmas?
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity of making one point because the noble Lord the Minister referred to the high morale of the British Forces at the present time. I come from a garrison town which regularly provides a number of units that serve in Northern Ireland and if it were necessary I could give personal evidence that what the Minister claims about the Army is absolutely true. Their morale is very high indeed and it is remarkable how, despite all the difficulties with which they are faced, they still maintain the high standard of discipline and morale which we expect from our Forces.
However, there is one point which I think the Minister and the Ministry of Defence should watch. In normal peacetime, with a professional Army it is—and has been recently—the custom for the families to accompany troops when they go to stations overseas. As a result of the big turnover of units between here and the North of Ireland there is a constant separation, at sometimes six-monthly, sometimes yearly and sometimes two-yearly intervals, for periods at a time between the soldiers and their families. I do not say it is the case now, but it could have an effect on morale because, frankly, nothing has a bigger effect on serving soldiers or Servicemen of any sort than problems at home arising as a result of complications attributable to their service in the Army, such as arise from the separation of the parent from the rest of the family. So I think I should take this opportunity of suggesting to the noble Lord that when the Government are considering the Defence cuts they should realise that the reduction of infantry units or major units which are used in the infantry role in Northern Ireland, for instance, which will put an even greater strain on the existing troops as a result of increased separation, might in the long run have an adverse effect upon the morale of our Forces.
Lord CAMOYS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in her remarks about the
1080
WRNS. I only hope that they will not be asked to undertake bomb disposal work, although I know they have done it in wartime, and also that they will not be required to fly some of the more difficult aircraft, such as the VTOL aircraft. Otherwise I fully support all that she has said. I myself have great respect for the WRNS.
I also agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I suggest that we should again encourage recruiting of the Gurk has because it will be realised that, in the case of Gurkhas who are killed or who die or retire, their families get no assistance from the Government and it is only by voluntary contributions, which last year totalled nearly £1 million (I know this because I have a great deal to do with Nepal), that their families receive any aid. That position, of course, is quite wrong. As an ex-Territorial officer I should also like to see the Territorial Army encouraged to a greater extent in this country. I do not think it would be very expensive to look into the matter and I am certain that it would be well worth while.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two in support of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I did not hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, but if Defence cuts are being talked about then I think we have already passed the peak period. The 1975 Review was purported to be carefully done by the Labour Party and the Labour Government and it was the Review to end all reviews. In the process of that, although I have no doubt we were labelled a bad ally by our allies in NATO, we were hauled over the coals for weakening the flanks and also weakening the antisubmarine effort of this country. What we are talking about is the freedom of the country and I suggest that before we accept any more cuts we ought to view the position from that angle.
The Earl of GLASGOW: My Lords, I should like to make two brief points. First, I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with everything the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said to us today and, secondly, I wish to refer to the WRNS. I hope the Government will look carefully at the question of placing the WRNS under the Naval Discipline Act. I have worked with WRNS for

1081
many years and they are the most magnificent body of women one could find anywhere. There is absolutely no cause whatsoever to alter the present way in which they conduct their affairs and their service life and I ask the Government most sincerely to think about this again.
3.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, first I should like to thank the House for acceding so willingly to my request that we should not broaden the discussion too much today. It is a matter of concern to all of us and no doubt when we have something to discuss, we shall discuss it. It is obvious that the opportunities given us by this annual review —perhaps I might say "restoration"—of the Armed Forces is valuable from the point of view of having a periodic discussion of an important element of military strength. But in practice I think this is something that we might very well discuss during our consideration of the Order that is in front of us, because it may be considered by your Lordships, and indeed by everybody concerned with this Order, that an actual five-yearly review, which the Order might assume, is not quite what we all want.
Obviously we must have opportunities for regular consideration of the state of the Armed Forces of our country and of the threat to the country. For this reason I would not altogether write off the possibility of full periodic reviews. But in any case, when anything concrete comes out of the discussions on governmental expenditure which are now going on, as is common knowledge, it is again quite clear that your Lordships may wish to discuss this matter in detail and I know this would be welcomed by my noble friend the Leader and by everybody concerned in this matter. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that the Government, as well as noble Lords throughout the House, have no illusion on the effect of major cuts on the morale of the Armed Forces. Without morale the Armed Forces might as well go home and return to civilian life.
To turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, I do not wish to discuss in detail the various points she has raised; I shall treat them as an
1082
advance warning of the subject she wishes to discuss. She may care to read speeches that I have made in the past supporting an increased use of the qualities of skill and character which our womenfolk possess within the Armed Forces. I think once I made a very good speech on the subject but that has doubtless passed into history.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked what were the advantages of bringing women in the Royal Navy under the same umbrella as the other two Armed Forces. I really think it means that the possibility of a wider use of their skills is made available by treating them on exactly the same basis as the women in the other two Armed Forces. Lady Vickers also mentioned the question of air traffic control. This is standard practice in the Royal Air Force. Many of the air traffic controllers are women, and very good they are, too. They are much appreciated by the pilots who find their calm voices very beneficial.
My Lords, many other things—there is the question of living on ships, flying, and so on—are under consideration. The problem is the same as the original problem facing your Lordships when it was decided to bring noble Peeresses into this House. It was a question of heads. Purpose-designed ships and ships designed for men only may need rather expensive alterations if women are to be accommodated. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has put her finger on the area where the first step might be taken, namely, the hydrographic ships. All these points are, to coin a phrase, under active consideration. By the time we get round to debating the Armed Forces Bill in about March, we might have something positive to say.
My Lords, may I echo the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, and also express our gratitude, to the forces in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We owe them a debt which we seem to forget, but which we must not forget. In my speech a fortnight ago, I tried to say, somewhat ineffectively, that morale is the key to everything else. The Forces in this part of the world, where they are doing the dirty work on our behalf, will do it to the full extent of their courage and ability only if they know that society is behind them to an encouraging extent.

1083
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, asked for rapid action. Let us hope we get it. It would be of benefit to us all. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, also supported the need for maintaining morale and for not reducing the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland to a point where separation and domestic disruption would follow on a reduced number of troops carrying an equally heavy, or heavier, burden. I wish to thank noble Lords for their tolerance and sympathy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
4.3 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 consolidated the law relating to the valuation of property for the purpose of rates, and one of its effects was to bring rates burdens closer into line with those in Great Britain. However, at that time because of contemplated changes in the law in Great Britain, it was not practicable to obtain uniformity on the principles affecting the determination of the net annual value of property containing plant and machinery, or that occupied by public utility undertakings.
My Lords, the main purpose of this order is to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain regarding the assessment of public utilities, docks and harbours, mines and quarries, and plant and machinery. In addition, the order simplifies and makes permanent the present temporary provision for the reduction of rates payable in respect of playing fields occupied by non-profit making organisttions. Article 10 and Schedule 1 of this order exempt the property of electricity or gas undertakings from rates except for dwellings, showrooms and certain administrative offices.
Article 11 and Schedule 2 provide for the assessment of the rateable value of
1084
notional hereditaments. Thus the aggregate value of the notional hereditament occupied by the Northern Ireland electricity service will be fixed by a formula based partly on distributing activities and partly on generating activities; similarly for gas undertakings, the assessment will be based on the supply and manufacture of gas. I would add that consultations are taking place now with all interested parties, including public utilities and local authorities. Article 11 and Schedule 2 also provide for docks and harbours in Northern Ireland to be assessed by the same method as that used in England and Wales, and at the same time provide for uniform assessment throughout Northern Ireland. At present Belfast Harbour is assessed on the basis of tonnage of ships, Larne Harbour on an "accountancy" or "profits" method, Coleraine and Londonderry Harbours are exempt, and Warren point Harbour is assessed on the capital cost. The new basis of assessment will not affect the 75 per cent. derating of freight transport hereditaments.
The result of this will be that Belfast, Lame and Warren point harbours will have a somewhat reduced rate burden, whereas Coleraine harbour and Londonderry will now have an increased rate burden. In addition, Schedule 2 makes provision for mines and quarries to be assessed on the same basis as in Great Britain. Article 6 and Schedule 2 empower the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to determine by order the basis of assessment for certain undertakings. These include natural gas undertakings, which at the present time do not exist in Northern Ireland, and canals which although not now operative may become so at some future date.
I will now turn to the question of rateability of plant and machinery covered by the order. In Northern Ireland it has always been considered that plant in the nature of a fixture was rateable. However, recent court decisions have thrown doubt on the view that the law regarding rateable plant in Northern Ireland had a wider interpretation than the corresponding law in Great Britain. Schedule 2 provides the precise classifications of rateable plant and machinery contained in rating law in Great Britain. This new basis of assessment does not affect the continuance of the derating of industrial

1085
hereditaments, normally a 75 per cent reduction. What this means in effect is that plant and machinery not listed in the Schedule is not rateable.
Article 4 simplifies and makes permanent the temporary provision, due to end on 31st March next year, for the reduction of rates payable in respect of playing fields occupied by non-profit making organisations. The reduction of 35 per cent. applies to playing fields used for open air games and open air athletic sports. However, the Northern Ireland Department of Finance is empowered to make an order extending the relief to other hereditaments which are used for recreation.
My Lords, I will now briefly deal with some of the minor but important provisions in the order. Article 9 extends the derating of fish farms to shellfish beds. Article 12 provides a safeguard for an agent who is chargeable with rates as "owner" of a hereditament. He is liable only to the extent of money he holds or has held for his principal. Any sums of money he has been compelled to pay in respect of public health expenses are to be ignored in determining the extent of money he holds. Article 13 lays down a complementary rule where an agent charged with public health expenses has paid out money in respect of rates. Relief from rates for property used for charitable recreational purposes was enjoyed prior to the 1972 order but was not clearly affirmed in that order. Article 7 of this order removes any doubts which might exist.
My Lords, in conclusion, I should say that the changes I have outlined have been discussed with representatives of local government, public utility undertakings and other interested parties in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved.—[Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.]
4.9 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for explaining the order. Perhaps I may be allowed to put two questions relating only to Article 4 which deals with rating relief for sport and recreation in Northern Ire-
1086
land when the Macrory local government reforms were introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972, I think I am right in saying that the direct financial responsibility for the major local government services was transferred to the Northern Ireland Department of Finance. The Department discharges its rating responsibility by striking a regional rate for the whole of Northern Ireland, and then this can be topped up by district rates which can be raised at the discretion of the new district councils. In practical terms this means that for sport and recreation, whereas local authorities in Great Britain have a discretion to give a rate rebate which may be up to 100 per cent., in Northern Ireland the Government, who are responsible, of course, at the moment for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, must decide the rate relief for sport for the Province as a whole; then under Article 4 we are told this is going to be fixed at 35 per cent.
I would make a plea to the noble Lord, who I understand has been dealing with this matter personally, for at least a 50 per cent. relief for Northern Ireland's sport and recreation. In the present climate in Northern Ireland, surely the importance of sports facilities cannot be over-emphasised; and, incidentally, the work of the Northern Ireland Sports Council, under its chairman, Colonel Shearer, and the director, Mr. Glasgow, should, I think, be recognised. That Council has worked out and has been pushing ahead with plans for a network of sports centres, of which Craigavon and South Antrim, and I think also Newtownards have been completed.
With the level of rainfall which is experienced in Northern Ireland, indoor facilities are especially desirable. I should like to thank the noble Lord, who, I believe, was also personally responsible, for agreeing to the Sports Council's request for rating relief for indoor facilities, which is an innovation. But I put it to the House that the level of relief is really not being pitched high enough. After all, the Government's own White Paper on sport and recreation gives advice to local authorities in Great Britain that relief ought to be pitched at least at 50 per cent. Would the noble Lord give me an assurance that the figures for relief accorded by local authorities in Great

1087
Britain will be looked at again, and that the Government will see whether the decision for Northern Ireland in this respect can be reconsidered?
May I add one further point. I am rather concerned, on reading Article 4, that a sports club or society is not going to be eligible for any relief at all if, in broad terms, it makes charges for admission. In 1973 the Government of the day agreed to make a contribution towards the Mary Peters running track, and at that time it became quite clear, when the negotiations were going on with the promoters of the project, what a very great responsibility rests on voluntary organisations who have to meet both capital and recurrent costs for modern sports facilities. That track which bears Mary Peters' name is being built on property which belongs to Queen's University Belfast, and I am sure that has been a prudent way of meeting annual recurrent costs. But so far as I can see, for most community sports facilities which are being supported voluntarily there can be no option at all but to make charges in order to keep going. I should be grateful if, here again, the noble Lord could give me an assurance that this exclusion is not going to bear more harshly in Northern Ireland than it does in Great Britain, that it will be interpreted as leniently as possible. Would the noble Lord tell me, or write to me to give me an assurance, that there is a power in this order to bring any future alterations to the order before Parliament; and will he give me an assurance as well that this will be done if the Government are persuaded that alterations are necessary?
4.14 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, and I can very easily answer his points on Article 4. I think the first thing to say is that the rate relief in Northern Ireland will be mandatory, as opposed to discretionary. The average relief has been calculated at something under 35 per cent.; under this order it is established at the figure of 35 per cent. This is, on the whole, higher than the average in Great Britain, though in Great Britain some local authorities go up to even 100 per cent., but many go to nil. We have left it open that this can be
1088
extended to other facilities which are not open air sports grounds, which is in fact meant to include indoor sports-grounds. This was at the request of Colonel Shearer, who I agree with the noble Lord is a most effective head of the Sports Council. He and his director and others came to lobby us, and we agreed that this order, without actually granting this facility, would leave it open for it to be made.
We have set up a Departmental Committee to look into the whole question and to take such advice as is required to decide whether the35 per cent. should be increased and whether the allowance should be made to other forms of sports facilities. I think that answers all the noble Lord's questions. This order leaves it open for such action to be taken, and the Committee will make a recommendation to the Government over it. I hope that answers what the noble Lord asked me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BANN RESERVOIR COMPANY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
4.17 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the draft Bann Reservoir Company (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 7th November be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this order is to enable the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment to acquire by agreement the water rights and other property of the Bann Reservoir Company (Article 3), to provide for the company's being discharged from its statutory obligations (Article 3) and to enable the company to be wound up (Article 4).
In 1961 another Private Act, the Bann Reservoir Company (Northern Ireland) Act 1961, was passed, which enabled the company to levy a charge ("the users' rate") on persons using, consuming or employing water from the river for industrial purposes, although the company was given no power to sell water. This rate will no longer be payable if the order is approved.
Legal difficulties have complicated the acquisition, however, as the company was not empowered to wind up voluntarily. In addition, the Department of the Environment lacked sufficient statutory powers under the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 to enable it to purchase the company's undertaking. Accordingly, Article 3 of the order empowers the Department to acquire, by agreement, the assets and liabilities of the Bann Reservoir Company for water sup ply purposes and enables the company to sell. Article 3 also releases the company from its obligations, under its Private Acts, to provide water for power purposes. Article 4 provides for the Company to be registered and wound up in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960.
The Company was established by Private Act in 1836 to regulate the flow of water in the Upper Bann river for providing power for industrial users. For this purpose two impoundments were constructed at Lough Island Reavy and Corbet Lough, both in County Down. The use of water for this purpose by industry has now ceased except in cases of emergency. If the order is approved the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland intends to acquire the two reservoirs to augment the public water supply.
The acquisition of the assets of the company has become a matter of some urgency with the emergence of a serious deficiency in water supplies, and the Department has already been obliged to abstract water for Belfast and other areas from Lough Island Reavy with the agreement of the company. If this order is approved by the House, the acquisition of Lough Island Reavy and Corbet Lough will make an important addition to the resources available for water supply to Belfast and other areas. It is the intention of the Department to continue to supply Belfast from Lough Island Reavy in the immediate future, although in the very long term Lough Island Reavy and Corbet Lough may well be used in a combined river regulation and water abstraction scheme. I commend the order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND PENSIONS
4.20 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING Lord ORR-EWING rose to call attention to the formula by which Her Majesty's Government determine the pay, pensions and perquisites of civil servants, and in particular to the comparison between these and the benefits of private sector employees; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships will know, the object of this debate is to elucidate more information, more openness, concerning the pay, the pensions, and perquisites of civil servants and see how these compare with similar people in the private sector. I cannot help feeling that too little is known about this problem, and I shall try to pose some queries and make some suggestions. As I understand it, the Lord Privy Seal would welcome the opportunity of making it more open and having a general discussion on this matter. He will be as aware as everybody that this Government were elected on the principle of open Government, and therefore now is an opportunity of making one area which is far from open more obvious to the public and to us.
At the start I wish to make it very clear that I am not challenging the principle of pay comparability. I am not challenging the principle of pension comparability between the private and the public sector and, above all, I am not attacking the civil servants. I think that the Civil Service is growing too fast, but then I was reared as an Admiralty Minister, Parkinson started his law in the Admiralty, and it seems that those basic qualities are spreading far outside the Admiralty today. I do not blame the civil servants for that; I am afraid I have to blame the Government for putting more responsibility on their plates. All I want to see, and I hope this debate will give us the chance of learning more, is fair and more open knowledge on this subject.
It could well be argued—I am sure it will be in the Minister's brief—that this was all started by the Conservative Government which introduced the principles of indexed pensions in 1971/72.

1091
Of course, this is true, but while we were working out our pensions in the period of Opposition—Opposition is a time when you do the thinking, as noble Lords opposite will know—the rate of inflation was literally one-fifth of what it is today. Your Lordships will know that under the new arrangement—or this relatively new arrangement—pensions in the public sector are adjusted on a June-to-June basis, and then they come into effect on 1st December. From June 1968 to June 1969 the rate of inflation was 5.3 per cent.; from June 1969 to June 1970 it was 5.9 per cent.; from June 1970 to June 1971 it was 10.3 per cent. So, when the rates of inflation were like that, we were dealing with something with which it was possible to keep up. But I would remind your Lordships that the Tory Government of the 1970/74 period preferred to go out of Office in their efforts to stem inflation rather than give in to the 30 per cent. which eventually became the norm in the year 1974/75.
Nor do I think in these changed circumstances and changed conditions that it is wrong to change your policy. I remember, in my early days in another place, that Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, was ragged because he turned a somersault on a previous answer of only six months before. When asked why he changed his mind, he said:
"The processes of my mind constantly adjust themselves to the movement of outside events".
This is exactly what I think we in this House should do in the light of the really serious inflation which could destroy our country if we did not take it seriously. May I say, as a second matter of principle, that I am first and foremost—I think everyone on these Benches would take the same view—in trying to reduce inflation, and each person is expected to make some sacrifice, as we all do; I am sure our civil servants would not wish to be an exception in this matter.
On 22nd April, Mr. Charles Morris, the Minister in another place responsible for the Civil Service, gave the Answer to a Parliamentary Question that he expected the award on 1st December—the adjustment. the indexed proofed pension—to rise by 14.4 per cent. As it turned out this was a terrible underestimate because, in fact, it rose by 26.1 per cent. That
1092
affected 360,000 former teachers, 250,000 former civil servants, 180,000 ex-Forces personnel, and 80,000 police, firemen, and many others. This increase cost the Government—cost the nation—£180 million extra on top of the £730 million currently being paid out on public pensions, making an annual cost of £910 million. Surely this is worth considering—and worth considering again—in the light of the solemnity and size of those figures.
Of course there have been dramatic increases for some senior civil servants and these have hit the headlines, but I do not wish to pursue that red herring on this occasion. I want to talk more about the general principles of it and the more average pension. The average pension to a former civil servant—I know that averages can be deceptive—is £14 a week, and the increase given on 31st December was £3·50. This may not sound very much, but this in itself is very much more generous than almost any private firm that I know has been able to give to its former employees.
This consideration started, to some extent, when I put down a Question on 12th November 1975, and in Hansard at column 1793 the Lord Privy Seal replied:
"Many large and medium-sized companies today have inflation proof pensions. Some of them are in tact better than those available to the Civil Service."
I put forward grave doubts as to whether that was an accurate statement, and he was kind enough to follow up with a letter to me, which I think I am free to quote from. He said:
"…many of the major good employers have nonetheless broadly achieved full inflation-proofing. The sources of my information are confidential; but I can say that two recent private surveys showed that in one case over 50 per cent. and in the other case 75 per cent. of the companies participating in the survey gave increases based on the retail price index movement."
I cannot help feeling that the words, "based on the retail price index movement" may be a little deceptive. You can take that into consideration, but I should like to hear much more evidence before I could believe that more than one or perhaps two companies in the whole of the private sector were able to give the 26.1 per cent. fully proofed index. I certainly know of none, and the average would seem to be nearer

1093
3 per cent, or, at very best, a maximum of 5 per cent. In fact, these figures are brought out in an Economist article this week on page 78, which many of your Lordships may have seen. Those figures are not from a small sample; they are from 761 private sector scheme companies, and only 30 per cent. of this 700 guaranteed any pension rise at all after retirement. That guarantee, by the way, was limited to 3 per cent., so I submit that my 3 per cent. is more accurate than the figures given by or supplied to the Lord Privy Seal.
I also submit that comparability with the private sector should take into consideration not just similar people of considerable responsibility in large public companies but the millions who work in smaller companies, and particularly the 1½ million to 2 million people who are self-employed; this last category are really in the most desperate position. Since my intention to initiate this debate was announced in the newspapers, I have had a number of really pathetic letters from people employing four, six, eight or a dozen people and who point out that day-after-day, week-after-week, they are having to make considerable contributions in their weekly stamps, double the average, and that they do not get comparable benefits. They appeal to be given fair and equable treatment, with proper tax reliefs, which would allow them, the self-employed, to provide for pensions when they retire. Thus, we seem to have two distinct categories. We have the very large and powerful companies—some of the banks and perhaps some of the oil companies—which may be able to give considerable indexation, and the vast majority of companies which, I maintain, are today not able to do so. I understand that the pay of a civil servant is reduced to a maximum of 7¾ per cent. below the analogue.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): Not maximum, my Lords; at current rates, Yes.
Lord ORR-EWING: I withdraw the word "maximum"; reduced to 7¾ per cent. below the private sector equivalent to allow for the fact that the pensions are non-contributory and fully index-proofed. Even if this Government do, as we hope that they will, achieve their target of reducing inflation to 10 per cent.
1094
by this time next year, and I have doubts on that issue, I feel that this 7¾ per cent. is a grotesque and gross underestimate of the value of a fully index-proofed pension. Moreover, there are other differences. A civil servant gets one-eightieth of his pension for each year of service, so that after 40 years he gets a 50 per cent. pension. The majority of executives in the private sector may—and, I think, do —get 66 per cent., and on the face of it that would appear to be more generous. However, a civil servant also gets on retirement three-eightieths of his final salary for every year as a gratuity, and for an Executive Officer in the middle rank drawing £5,500 a year, this amounts to a tax-free gratuity of £8,300. I do not think this is generally appreciated and I wonder whether this is taken into account when working out comparability.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that all civil servants receive £8,000-odd free of tax?
Lord ORR-EWING: No, my Lords; I said they receive three-eightieths of their salary for each year's service as a tax-free gratuity and that in the case of a civil servant of middle grade drawing £5,500 this would amount to £8,300. Of couse, if, with that tax-free gratuity, they wish to buy an annuity, then their pensions would be greater than comparable pensions in private industry. I wonder whether this is taken into account. I am afraid that I must list these points and I am simply giving them as examples in asking whether they are taken into account. Moreover, a civil servant can opt for early retirement—at, say, 56 years of age—and he can then obtain another job and be a useful member of the community in that other job. But while he is in that other job his gratuity is put into cold storage and when he takes it, say, at the age of 65, it is fully index and inflation-proofed, and it could obviously be double the sum at the present rate, or even more. This is an exceptional benefit, too. I do not know whether it is widely known, and I should like to know whether it is taken into account.
Somebody has written to me about his holidays. He points out that after 20 years' service a civil servant of medium rank would get six weeks' paid holiday. That is very rare in industry. Four

1095
weeks is more common, and five exceptional. Is this taken into account? Then there is this strange anomaly: if any ordinary citizen decides to emigrate on retirement, his national retirement pension is frozen; it is not adjusted, as other old age pensions are adjusted. But not so for a civil servant. His pension, even if he decides to emigrate and go overseas, is fully inflation-proofed. Is that anomaly taken into account? I will not mention, because it has been mentioned in other ways, the boarding school fees for children of officers serving in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I fully acknowledge that disruption in the education of one's children is damaging and I think it right that some special provision should be made. However, it is a quite exceptional and outstanding perquisite if one is given between £6,000 and £10,000 tax free to educate one's children.
I wish to draw attention to one other anomaly. In a private pension scheme a pensioner may get two-thirds of his terminal salary, and that is the majority. I am not sure, however, if it is generally realised that from this is subtracted the £1,100 a year which the State pensioner —this is for a married couple—gets from the State. We all, I hope, get this when we retire. However, this is not so with a civil servant. After 40 years he gets his 50 per cent. pension. On top of this he gets the tax-free gratuity about which I have spoken; on top of this he gets the State pension, but, for some strange historical reason, he gets this less a reduction of £67·75—an odd sum which I suppose is buried in the fruits of time. I wonder whether this is taken into account when working out comparability? Further, he retires at 60 instead of 65 and thus has the advantage of a greater chance of finding a new job.
I come to the question of security of tenure. I recently culled from Written Answers in another place on 10th to 12th November the fact that in the past three years, in the 13 main Departments of State, a total of 69 civil servants have been prematurely retired, 39 on the grounds of limited efficiency, 22 on the grounds of discipline and eight on the grounds of inefficiency. Compared with the private sector, this is an incredible state of job security. It is difficult to
1096
measure because most salaried people on retiring from or being made redundant in industry seek their own jobs and their own solutions. But it is a fact that in regard to the Professional and Executive Register, which is run by the Ministry of Employment and which I think is the last ditch for many people, 23,000 extra middle-class salaried people have put themselves on that Register in the last year. This is a very substantial number and I think is only a small part of the iceberg of unemployment in that area. I therefore suggest that today a civil servant has very much better job security than has existed for many decades and certainly very much better than in the private sector.
I hope noble Lords will not consider that I have taken up too much of their time in dealing with the question of pensions. I now come to the pay portion of the Motion. The Pay Research Unit has a staff of 61 and is responsible for collecting data and providing it to Her Majesty's Government and the Whitley Council. This is a quasi Civil Service unit and I believe that the public are disturbed by the suspicion that, though it may be independent and of high integrity, it may, as it is within the Civil Service, be too much judge and jury in its own cause. I feel that the time has come to look at the structure of the Pay Research Unit. Perhaps half the people employed in that unit should be from the private sector. Also, I should certainly wish to see some management consultants or "head hunters" recruited and their knowledge made use of, because they have a very detailed knowledge of just how much a person needs to be paid for a job and of exactly what other rewards should be given him. I make the constructive suggestion that it is time to look at the make-up of the Pay Research Unit.
I should also like to ask the Government whether they are dedicated for all time to the non-contributory side of these pensions. This has come up before. The Tomlin Report in the 1930s recommended that pensions should be contributory rather than non-contributory and the Plowden Report came out with the same recommendation, but in both instances the Government of the day turned down the proposal. I cannot help feeling that

1097
it would be easier to compare conditions if pensions in the public sector were contributory as they are in the private sector.
If I may now speak from personal experience in industry, we increasingly find that Government, quasi-Government and nationalised industries such as the British Steel Corporation are able to pay higher salaries and to offer greater security and far better index-linked pensions than British industry is able to do. Comparability seems to have got out of line. In the electrodes industry, with which I have long been connected, we arc certainly losing skilled inspectors, wire-men and the like to the Post Office, which is offering very much better terms. One has only to look at its accounts to realise that it really cannot afford to do so. Yet the Government came out very forcefully at the Chequers meeting, saying that priority must from now on go to British industry and to investment in British industry. I hope, therefore, that they will look most carefully to see that industry is getting fair and open comparability with the public sector.
I hope to end as I began, and to say that it has not been my concern in any way to undermine the principle of comparability. I hope that by initiating the debate I shall have given the opportunity for an open and broad discussion on conditions in the public and private sectors. Let us be told on exactly what basis these pay, pensions and perquisites are calculated. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.45 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. In one sense it is opportune and in another it is long overdue. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has introduced it in a restrained way when one considers the barrage of criticism to which the Civil Service has been subjected in recent weeks in the Press and the other media. As noble Lords may have observed, the headline writers have not lacked colour, or imagination in their descriptions of civil servants and their conditions of service. We have read of "Whitehall's happy laughing boys", of the Government as an employer being guilty of, "Gilding the golden bowler" or allowing, "Over-privileged public service pensioners" to feed at the," Public trough". The Civil
1098
Service is certainly not above criticism, and it is right and proper that it should be subject to continuing public scrutiny, but I am bound to say that much of what I have read recently has been ill-informed and in some ways downright malicious. This House has an obligation to the public and the Civil Service to examine and establish the facts and to separate the reality from the myth.
I am very glad, therefore, to have this opportunity to set the record right, and I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, not only for having initiated the debate but for the way in which he has approached it and for the depth of his research. Some of the points he made I intend to deal with in the course of my speech because I, too, believe in open Government and there is nothing to hide here. However, I shall deal with the more detailed points when, with the permission of the House, I wind up at the end of the debate.
At the outset of this debate, I should like to make two main points. First, Civil Service pay and conditions are decided by Ministers. There is no question of civil servants being judge and jury in their own cause, as the noble Lord suggested. Speaking for myself, I recognise that I am a rather awkward sort of person and that I need to be fully convinced of the merits of a case before passing it on to my colleagues. They in their turn also need to be convinced, and they, too, can be very awkward. I say that because I have had some responsibility for the Civil Service during the past 14 months.
My second main point is this. After those 14 months as Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service, my view is that we in this country have a Civil Service of which we can justly be proud. Almost without exception, our civil servants are loyal, dedicated and hardworking, often in the most trying circumstances and under great pressures. I was very grateful to see that Mr. Peter Walker had himself expressed this view quite recently. The work that they do is vital to the just and efficient administration of a civilised society which seeks to provide a high level of welfare, security at home and abroad, and a decent standard of living for all its members. I have had the privilege of visiting a wide range of Government offices and establishments—Social Security offices, dockyards,

1099
Customs, Inland Revenue and—quite recently in Aberdeen—the research laboratories concerned with future supplies of our fish.
I can assure your Lordships that the cartoonists have got the Civil Service quite wrong. The caricature of the civil servant as middle-aged, male, Whitehall-based, pin-striped and bowler-hatted is far from reality. Fortunately, the average civil servant is more likely to be young, female and in the Provinces. There are about 719,000 civil servants, 3 per cent. of the working population; 179,000 are industrial and a slightly larger number are in the clerical grades. Only a tiny proportion are in Whitehall. Seven out of 10 do not even work in London. About one in 700 are in the most senior grades of Under-Secretary and above. The average earnings of non-industrial civil servants are £54 a week, which is far removed from the millionaire and Croesus-like image which some of the Press is attempting to portray.
Civil servants are not a class of people set apart—they are members of the ordinary working community. But the accusation is made—and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, touched upon it—that there are too many of them and that some of them—the noble Lord himself did not refer to this—are non-productive. To the first accusation, I would say only this. Although I am myself concerned about the size of the Civil Service, the fact of the matter is that the Civil Service is only as big as it needs to be to do the work required of it by Government and by Parliament to the standards which we lay down. Its manpower and expenditure are closely scrutinised by Ministers and by its own stringent monitoring of staff and work. To make large savings—and here I stress the word "large"—in Civil Service manpower, therefore, we must either cut out many tasks or accept lower standards.
Well, my Lords, I am always willing to listen to suggestions for work which need not be done. But it is my experience, and I am sure that of many others, that as soon as the suggestion is made up pops another lobby to argue that the work is essential and vital. But if we lower standards, people will have to put up with rougher justice; to accept that their problems will not necessarily be
1100
handled with the same care as other people's. Is this really what we want? How long would it be acceptable to the public or the media?
To the second accusation that is made, although not here today, that civil servants are non-productive I would simply say that they do the work we give them to do. Some. indeed, are factory workers in the Mint, Ordnance factories, and dockyards. More than 60 per cent. of the non-industrials work in jobs providing direct service to the community; for example, paying out pensions and other benefits, collecting taxes and finding people jobs. Surely, my Lords, it is productive to provide services for the wellbeing of the community?
So, I do not question the right of criticism of the Civil Service, but I do object to the character of some recent criticism. It affects the morale of the Civil Service. But what concerns me most is that the bitterness and viciousness of the attacks create new strains, unnecessary strains, between civil servants and the public they serve. What in many cases arc difficult tasks only become more difficult. It is all too characteristic of our period that only complaints, justified or otherwise, are reported and highlighted. Rarely, if ever, do we hear about the many cases where people have gone out of their way to be particularly helpful.
I now turn to that part of the noble Lord's Motion which draws attention to the formula by which the Government determine Civil Service pay. I am glad to see the recognition that it is the Government who determine pay. To read many of the Press comments one would think that civil servants just help themselves from the till. This is of course not the case. As I have said, it is Ministers who decide Civil Service rates of pay. To assist them in this, there is a rigorous and fully-considered pay system which operates in the Civil Service—the system of fair comparisons. The basic principle of fair comparisons is to pay a civil servant what others are paid for similar work elsewhere, after taking account of other conditions of service. This system was recommended by the Priestley Royal Commission in 1955, which argued that the Government should not take the lead but should pay rates broadly comparable to those paid by good employers outside. It thought this

1101
would be fair to the taxpayer and fair to the civil servants themselves. Successive Governments have accepted this principle over the last 20 years.
How, then, do fair comparisons work? The basic facts are found by the Pay Research Unit which looks at a wide range of Civil Service jobs actually being done in a given grade, and then identifies—also by inspection on the ground—a wide range of similar jobs outside. To avoid any freak results, a wide range of comparisons is used. For example, the pay of a clerical officer is derived from 340 rates of pay covering tens of thousands of people in 42 organisations. To ensure that the comparison is complete and fair to both sides, the pay research procedure also takes account of other conditions of service, such as differences in hours and leave, and pension contributions and benefits. The result is a range of pay for grades in the Civil Service genuinely equivalent to that being paid to those doing comparable work elsewhere. The Pay Research Unit does not determine or recommend the final levels of Civil Service pay. It provides the factual basis. Although there is some room for negotiation with the unions over some of the adjustments, the pay research process is largely mechanistic.
I should emphasise that the final pay levels are neither the best nor the worst of those being paid outside; they are specifically pitched in the middle of the range. At any one time, therefore, it is possible to find people who are better paid, and others who are worse paid, than their Civil Service equivalent. No single example can be conclusive; it is the broad picture which matters. That is the system. It is calculated to ensure that civil servants are paid fairly, but not more than fairly. But does it in fact achieve that result? Let us look at the most recent pay settlement where I have personally been accused of having "taken my colleagues to the cleaners".
The average pay increase nationally for males in non-manual occupations during the year ending 1st April 1975 was 27·5 per cent. What did civil servants get at the same date?: an average increase equivalent to an annual rate of 26 per cent. My Lords, I do not think that there is any evidence here of unfair discrimination in favour of the Civil Service. Since 1964, national
1102
average earnings have increased by 221 per cent. Over the same period, average Civil Service earnings have risen by just under 200 per cent. Again I have to ask: is there evidence of unfair discrimination in favour of the Civil Service?
The system of fair comparisons means what it says. Since it was introduced, civil servants have, on average, been treated neither better nor worse than their counterparts outside. My Lords, let me repeat—the pay of civil servants is settled by Ministers; and anyone who wishes to press the charge that civil servants, by their advice, lead Ministers into unjustified high settlements had better produce his evidence to that effect. Certainly, the figures I have quoted, and the figures into which I have researched, lend no support to any of these charges.
Finally on pay, my Lords, I should like to make it clear that the Civil Service, like everyone else, will be bound by the Government's pay policy. The Government have made it clear that the pay limits must apply to everyone without exception, and it is our firm intention that civil servants shall be treated neither more nor less favourably than the rest of the community. For the duration of the policy, therefore, the operation of Pay Research has been suspended.
Great attention has been paid to those in the Higher Civil Service, and I hope I may be allowed to say a few words about them. My Lords, their pay is determined by the Government on the basis of recommendations, not by Pay Research but by the Top Salaries Review Body, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle; and here I should like to express, as my predecessors have done, a special word of appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues on the Review Body for all the effort and dedication they put into their work. My Lords, in case there is any question of patronage or "pull" here, may I put it on record that the work of the Review Body is voluntary and unpaid.
As your Lordships will know, the Government decided to stage the increases recommended by the TSRB for both Permanent Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries. These grades are therefore being paid substantially less than the levels recommended by the Review Body

1103
after a full and exhaustive study, and this despite the fact that the Review Body's recommendations reflected their view that pay in the public service should not attempt to match the highest salaries that can be obtained for jobs of comparable weight in the private sector. The top salary in the Home Civil Service, which is paid to only three people, now stands at £20,175, instead of the £23,000 recommended by the Review Body. The pay of Permanent Secretaries—the official heads of the major Departments of State, with all the heavy responsibilities they bear—has increased, before tax, by a mere 18½ per cent. since 1st January 1972, over a time when prices alone have increased by more than twice as much.
The clear fact is that senior civil servants have not been favoured at the expense of others. They are not featherbedded or privileged. Their standard of living has been dropping for many years. This is going to continue, for, like the rest of those earning more than 8,500 a year, they will receive no increases whatsoever during the current year—not even the second stage of the increase necesary to bring them up to the pay levels recommended by the Review Body. I recognise that now, during the recession, the job security of a senior civil servant may be greater than that of some of his counterparts in the private sector. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, himself touched upon this. But the Review Body—the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues—specifically took this into account in recommending the pay levels that they did, and again I see no justification for the accusation that these people have been cushioned from economic reality or have looked after themselves at the expense of others.
I shall now say a few words about pensions, where I believe the greatest misunderstanding arises. To describe Civil Service pensions as "non-contributory" is really a misnomer. In the first place, civil servants make a full employee's contribution of 1·5 per cent. of pay for widows' and family benefits. In the second place, the civil servant does not get his own pension for free. This is because, under the Pay Research system, where a person outside pays a contribution from his salary for his pen-
1104
sion, that contribution is deducted before his pay rate is used as a comparison. For example, if the rate of contribution is 6 per cent. and if the outside person's salary is £3,000 a year, then the rate used to provide the comparable Civil Service salary is £2,820.
In the third place, a comparison is made of pension benefits and a further deduction is made from Civil Service pay rates to reflect the differences between the Civil Service pension scheme and outside schemes as a whole. Under the 1974 pay agreement this deduction was 1·75 per cent.—a figure which is based on calculations made by the Government's Actuary's Department and subject to review each year. That is why I raised the point when the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, made it. This is not a firm figure; it can vary from year to year. It must therefore be obvious, from these figures, that civil servants pay for their pension benefits just as other workers do. The only difference is that their contributions are deducted before their final salaries are determined rather than being deducted from the salaries themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, asked whether the Government's mind was completely closed to the question of having a contributory scheme as opposed to the present one. My Lords, I know of a number of my colleagues within the Civil Service who, for various reasons, think that this might be a wise decision; but the reason why successive Governments have not adopted it, despite various recommendations, is that to the National Exchequer, the national purse, the cost would in fact be greater than that of the present system. But, my Lords, without doubt it has been the inflation-proofing element in Civil Service pension arrangements which has caused most criticism and has given rise to accusations of civil servants being in a privileged position. In many ways, I suppose, it is inevitable, and in many ways right, that at a time of very high inflation these arrangements should be brought into question. It is understandable that those who do not have such protection—and, indeed, the taxpayer in general—should question whether it is fitting that public service pensioners should be insulated in this way.
I fully understand the reasons for the anxieties and the comments which have

1105
been expressed, but I would ask your Lordships to consider the following. First, this month's 26 per cent. pensions increase covers the rise in the cost of living during the twelve months ended 30th June 1975—a period during which earnings went up by a similar amount. If the pensioners could have been given their increase before 1st August I do not think we should be having the criticism we are having today. But that was not administratively possible. To have denied the pensioner his full increase after the wage and salary earners had just recently received their pay increases would have been, in my view, no sort of justice at all. Pensioners should not be made to pay for other people's pay increases.
Secondly, before 1971 increases in public service pensions were determined in what I can only describe as a haphazard way. As a result, many who had given a lifetime of service suffered considerable hardship in their declining years. It was the previous Administration which in 1971—and here may I say that I applaud their decision—put these ad hoc arrangements on to a formal basis by providing that public service pensions should increase in line with the cost of living.
Perhaps I might quote, because I think it is right to do so, the words of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, who said in his Second Reading speech:
"Our citizens will gladly shoulder the cost of meeting this obligation to those whose lives have been given to the public service. Justice, long delayed, is now round the corner. This Bill represents a major milestone in the long and chequered history of public service pensions."
It was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who introduced the Bill in this place and he expressed a very warm welcome to the Bill itself and to the principle. I know that all noble Lords will agree with me when I say how delighted we are that he is taking part in the debate today in the light of his responsibilities at the time as Minister for the Civil Service.
When the 1971 Act was introduced, it was criticised as being too mean. Yes, too mean—not too generous—because it denied the pensioner, however long he might live, any share in the growing prosperity of the nation as a whole; because the pension was related to prices and not
1106
to the growth of incomes. And, let us be in no doubt about this, over any reasonable period of years, the national wealth will continue to grow. But at least the 1971 Act has ensured that the pensioner does not get progressively poorer, while those in employment get progressively better off.
To my mind, the principle of inflation-proofing is a sound one which should command general support. It is the cornerstone of the additional component in the new State pensions scheme, and it is the least that other major European countries do for their public service pensioners. Many of them—France, Germany and Japan, for instance—go further and link public service pensions with pay. I suspect that the reason for the general clamour against the inflation-proofing arrangements is that this year will be an abnormal one in that we can expect prices to increase faster than earnings. For a brief period, therefore, pensioners will be doing better than the working population.
But, my Lords, where pension matters are concerned, we must take a long-term view. It is not necessarily right to make a sudden change because of one year's unprecedented inflation. Future conditions, rather than the present, are what need to be taken into account. Obviously. we will keep the inflation-proofing principle under review and look at it in the context of the economic situation next year, by the end of which we intend to reduce the rate of inflation to single figures. Therein, my Lords, lies the answer to the present difficulties. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that we should be very wary of interfering abruptly and frequently with long-term pension arrangements because of short-term changes in our economic situation.
Thirdly, my Lords, full inflation proofing does not apply to the Civil Service alone. It covers such groups as retired policemen, nurses, teachers, soldiers, Servicemen, dustmen and postmen Indeed, it also applies to Ministers and MPs, and also to some chairmen of statutory boards.
Furthermore, inflation-proofing is by no means unknown in the private sector. I accept—I think that this was the burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—that it is difficult for many firms, particularly the smaller ones, to

1107
protect their retired employees fully against increases in the cost of living. Nevertheless, there are several major employers who have broadly achieved full inflation-proofing; although understandably—I stress "understandably"—they cannot commit themselves to being able to continue to do so.
Finally, I suggest that we should keep this matter in perspective. There arc about 1 million public service pensioners who received increases this month. They include some 260,000 retired civil servants, of whom only about 70 now have pensions of £8,500 a year or more. Even after this increase of 26 per cent., the average pension is no more than £17.50 per week.
And what, my Lords, is the cost of this "crippling burden on the taxpayer" as it has been described? The estimated cost of Civil Service pensions in 1975–76 is some £260 million.
That may sound a large sum, but it is no more than about 10·5 per cent. of the total salary bill. And that includes all pension benefits and the full cost of inflation-proofing, even at present rates.
I have already pointed out that a civil servant has already made a full contribution of about 7 per cent. by way of pay forgone and direct contribution towards this cost. On that calculation the cost of these pensions to the salary bill is approximately 3·5 per cent. so far as this year is concerned. The Government's contribution under the present "pay as you go" arrangements is there for a modestone—certainly much less than the contribution an employer has to make to a funded scheme. I know that that is because funding is highly desirable in private sector schemes. But it is unnecessary for the Civil Service. My point remains. So far from costing the taxpayer exorbitant sums, out of all proportion to the cost of private sector pensions, Civil Service pensions are quite remarkably economical.
My Lords, a lot of silly statements are being made about the cost of Civil Service pensions. For example, I think it was said in this House, but certainly it has been said in the Press, that it was estimated that Civil Service pensions are worth £410,000 per person. These esti-
1108
mates are absurd because they are based on one assumption which is false and another which is ludicrous. The false assumption is that the average Civil Service pension is £9,000 a year: in fact it is £900. But that is nothing compared with the second assumption that inflation will continue at 20 per cent. over the next 30 or 40 years. My Lords, the prophet who makes that assumption will believe anything. But it will not happen and, if it does, the effect on the Pensions (Increase) Act will be the least of our worries.
Finally, my Lords, the noble Lord's Motion refers to perquisites, or "perks". I can deal with this matter very briefly, because there is very little indeed in the way of "perks" in the Home Civil Service. There are no subsidised mortgages; there is no free life insurance; there are no individual expense accounts; there are no share option schemes. All travel and subsistence allowances are laid down and closely monitored to relate solely to expenses incurred on official duty. So far as cars are concerned, not a single one is provided for a civil servant's private or domestic use. Indeed, even for official purposes, only some 50 out of 700,000 civil servants have cars allotted to them for uses which may include journeys to and from work.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I repeat briefly the main points. I apologise for speaking at length but this subject has raised a great deal of public interest. Civil Service pay is fairly determined and can be demonstrated not to have got out of step with the rest of the community's. They have good pension terms. This I recognise, but they meet a large part of the cost themselves and the burden on the taxpayer, as a proportion of the salary bill, is in fact remarkably low. They are not padded out with perks. In the light of what I have said and of their own experience, I have no doubt that those Members of this House who have had close connections with the Civil Service will resent, as I do, the biased and ill-informed nature of much recent Press comment. I conclude by saying this. I do not believe that, in the matter of pay and pensions, the civil servant receives privileged treatment. Previous Governments have aimed to be a fair employer, no less and no more. That remains the intention of this Government.
5.21 p.m.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, if anything is more destructive of human tran-quality than to make a maiden speech in your Lordships' House, it is breaking a matronly silence. Nevertheless, this "matron" is glad that his noble friend has put down this Motion, and is grateful to him for his extremely well informed speech. I ant glad especially if this debate helps in any way to dispel the doubts and suspicions about the arrangements that we make for the Civil Service and, indeed, for the public service as a whole. The facts which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has adduced will help in that respect.
I felt impelled to speak—admittedly under the curling lash of Lord St. Aldwyn's Whip—in view of the responsibilities for the Civil Service which I held for the best part of three years, following the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, preceding my noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Indeed, if something in the state of the Civil Service is rotten this House must bear its share of responsibility for this sad state of affairs. For myself, I remain a firm believer in a separate Department, the Civil Service Department, to supervise the workings of the Civil Service, and it is no bad thing that the Minister in day-to-day charge of that Department should be in this House; although, to employ my noble friend's phraseology, it would be wrong if it were to be an exclusive perquisite of this House.
I want now to turn to the heart of the matter, the principles on which the pay and pensions of the Civil Service are normally based. I should like to state baldly and at the outset, so far as pay is concerned, that I believe the twin principles of fair comparisons and pay research are right, and that so far as public service pensions are concerned, we are right to protect them against the erosion of inflation. I shall say briefly why I believe that fair comparisons represents the right approach.
I believe this for two reasons: first fairness to the taxpayer. The civil servant should be remunerated no better than his equivalent outside. The taxpayer has a guarantee therefore that he is not paying over the odds. By the same token, the
1110
civil servant's remuneration should not be less than his equivalent outside. The taxpayer thus has a guarantee that the Civil Service will be able to attract its due quota of talented people. The second reason is that fair comparison insulates civil servants' pay from transient and political pressures. It is therefore a safeguard of the Service's efficiency, its essential impartiality and, indeed, its incorruptibility. We would be unwise in today's rather rickety society to ignore this last consideration. In any event, I should hate to think of the results of a free-for-all in civil servants' pay.
So far as the pensions are concerned, the, present arrangements which have been so widely if recently criticised stem, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House rightly pointed out, from the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. I introduced this Act in your Lordships' House four and a half years ago. I was glad to do so. I remain glad that I did so. I should like to make three not particularly original points on that. The first is that the Act discharged a commitment to inflation-proofing made by both the main Parties before the 1970 Election. It was embodied in our own Conservative Election Manifesto A Better Tomorrow. That is a phrase which has a certain nostalgic ring about it today—our less good today. The commitment was specific. And I gladly acknowledge that a great deal of work along these lines had been done in the Civil Service Department under the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when I came into that Department.
Secondly, there was a general welcome for this Act in both Houses of Parliament and, indeed, a virtually unanimous welcome in your Lordships' House. Such criticism as I had to fend off— and if it came from anywhere it came from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne—sitting there on his lofty montagne—was that it fell short of the principle of parity. The fact that this Act received bipartisan, indeed tripartisan support, does not confer any title of bastardy upon it. The third point I should like to dwell on for a second is that the umbrella of this Act enfolds far more than just the Civil Service. One million or so pensioners already derive pensions benefits from it, and behind them stands an army of some 6 million employees in the public sector

1111
whose pensions benefits will derive from this Act.
We are dealing therefore with a matter which intimately affects the lives of many millions of our fellow citizens, both working and retired. I say again that I believe that both Houses of Parliament were right in the judgment they made in 1971. The confusing, arbitrary, often harsh and often unjust legacy of eleven previous Pensions(Increase) Acts badly needed tidying up. I believe it is right that the Government of the day, if humanly possible, should ensure that their retired employees are able to buy the same goods and services next year as in the current year. To use the noble Lord's phrase, no more but no less. A declining and erratic standard of living in the late evening of one's life is a sad thing to wish upon one's fellow citizens.
What then has gone wrong, and why all this fuss? What has gone wrong is crystal clear: it is that successive Governments hitherto have been unable or unwilling to rein in the wild horses of inflation, to drive out this enemy of inflation which is now within our gates. Civil Service pay and pensions have been lifted, as it were, on a side wind by this great gale of inflation blowing through our economy. That is why the Civil Service pay settlement in April was 26 per cent., and that is why the pensions increases which came into effect ten days ago were 26·1 per cent. That is a figure, I must confess, four and a half years ago I should never have dreamed of in the wildest of Latin American nightmares.
At this moment, therefore, of growing unemployment it is only natural that envious eyes should be turned towards the relative—only relative—security of Civil Service employment. It is understandable in a period when most pension funds in the private sector are backed up against the wall, and when the majority of companies in the private sector are finding it impossible to inflation-proof, that many should look askance at these provisions for the public service. Standing, as I now do, on the private sector side of the fence. I know how very deeply this disparity is felt. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was in any way exaggerating in what he said in that respect.
1112
What, in these circumstances, are we to do? The obvious answer is, of course, that we have to hit inflation hard on the head. But that is a matter I am content to leave to wiser heads and, possibly, to wiser Governments. So far as the subject of this debate is concerned—that is, pay, pensions and, if I may use the expression, "perks"—we have to ensure that the arrangements are not only right and reasonable in themselves but that they are seen to be right and reasonable, and seen to be so by the man in the street. I believe that the arrangements are right and reasonable.
So far as pay is concerned, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has given us the figures and I think it is true to say that the long-term and consistent effect of pay research over the 20 years or so in which it has been in operation has been to increase a given civil servant's salary somewhat less than the increase over the same period in national earnings or wages or salaries. That is the long-term effect.
Regarding pensions, again, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has given the figures and I should like just to dwell briefly on the range of the spectrum here. At the lower end, it is not unusual for a civil servant to retire with a salary of as little as £30 a week. With 20 years' service, that civil servant's pension would be less than £8 a week and the pension of his widow less than £4 a week. Thus, 26·1 per cent. for her represents about £1. At the other end of the scale there are those much maligned Permanent Secretaries, one or two of whom I see lurking around. They happen to have worked rather hard before they take a breather in our House. After 40 years of service—and that is a lot: I think perhaps more than any of them have put in—a Permanent Secretary would now receive a lump sum of £31,500 and a pension of £10,500 a year. The latter, however, is not a very munificent amount after Mr. Healey has got at it.
But although these arrangements for pay and pensions may be right and reasonable, there is little doubt that they do not so appear at the present time to a great many people outside the public service. In my judgment, rightly or wrongly, the malaise over this matter goes very deep and it will not be dispelled

1113
just by sitting tight and hoping that the tide of inflation will ebb. I would not dream of suggesting in detail to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal how to suck this rather indigestable egg, but I would suggest it is time for a further hard look at the whole system. It could not be a better time in one way: pay research is suspended for the time being and pensions will not come under review until next summer. I would myself hate to see the Government of the day backtrack. Thousands of people from Cornwall to Caithness have made their dispositions for retirement on the assumption that the Government of the day will not walk back from the principles embedded in the 1971 Act. True, if we allow inflation to run on at anything like the present pace we may not be able to hold the position. But clearly, if the horse bolts down the Weimar course, if I may so express it, inflation-proofing, and much else besides, will go out of the window.
In the circumstances, therefore, I should like to suggest—the noble Lord has said that this matter will be held under review —that such a review could go rather wider and further. I should like the Government, without delay, to establish an inquiry so that there could be a further look at the whole set-up; that is, both the system as a whole and its operation. Recommendations could be made as to whether or not any future publio service pensions should be fully contributory. If —Heaven forfend!—we cannot bring inflation within reasonable limits, and if the disparity between the public and the private sectors becomes too great so far as pensions are concerned, then such an inquiry could recommend whether some ceiling or temporary limitation should be placedon Civil Service pensions. It could also recommend whether any such limitation should be general or should apply only to the larger pensions. Above all, such a body could probe whether due account is being taken in today's circumstances—when salaries in the public sector are being fixed—of the benefits there of relative security of employment and of inflation proofing in the various inflationary conditions that we have today. It could take account of the detailed points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing.
If such an inquiry were undertaken, I would hold four things to be important.
1114
It is important that pay and pensions should be looked at together: they are umbilically linked. It is important that the inquiry should cover the whole area of public service and not only the civil servants. It is important that the inquiry should be sufficiently "high level" and independent so that it would not come under even the breath of a suspicion that the Civil Service is preserving a particularly succulent dish for itself under wraps.
A difficulty—and this was touched on by my noble friend—about the arrangements for pay and research is that although the Pay Research Unit does its work with admirable fairness and thoroughness, its operations, due to the need which is felt for confidentiality, are too cloistered, too mysterious and too far removed from the public gaze. Clearly, some officials would need to be associated with, and would have a very real contribution to make to, any such inquiry as I am suggesting. But so, too, would the trade unions and the representatives of the employers' side, in both the public and private sectors.
Finally, the Report of such an inquiry should be published in full. My hope would be that, if such an inquiry were set up, it would recommend a more open system of pay research in the future and the establishment outside Whitehall of some free-standing body—a development of the Pay Research Unit—to review pay and pensions, subject to the overall direction of the Government of the day.
I have one penultimate word to say and, as I have two-and-a-half years of speeches up my sleeve, I hope I might be allowed two minutes more. I have directed my remarks so far to the subject of this debate; that is, pay and pensions. But in the whole public sector there is something which worries me much more; and that is numbers. It really is essential, if public expenditure growth is to be checked and real resources freed for paying our way in this rough world, that we should be economical in all things, including manpower.
So far as civil service manpower is concerned, we—that is, the Conservative Government of 1970–74—managed, just, to check its growth during those years. We managed to put the brake on; but I cannot pretend, despite a hard and honest effort, that we did more than that. The

1115
signs are that the brake has now been released and that the ranks of the non-industrial Civil Service are once again beginning to swell. The real mistake of those four years, as I see it, was to concentrate most of our attention in this field on Central Government manpower. We tended to overlook, as did most people, the growth in local government manpower. It has been quite staggering. From 1,326,000 in 1954, it grew a decade later to 1,750,000 and now, a decade further on, it must be approaching 2,500,000. I am quite certain that this is a burden of over-government which this country cannot continue to bear; and, of course, we are alt in the first line of responsibility here, because the main reason for that growth is the cascade of legislation which pours from the spout of Parliament.
That is all I wish to say, save in summary. To summarise, I believe that it would be a great mistake to put the clock back; that we should not abandon the principles which have governed pay in the Civil Service and pensions in the public sector because of temporary difficulties. However, the circumstances of today are very special. Behind all the muckraking about the privileged position of civil servants lies a deep and serious concern. If that concern cannot be allayed I fear that, as one of the results of inflation, we shall witness another great schism opening up within our society—that between those who do their work in the public sector and those who do their work in the private sector.
That is why my plea to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and to the Government is to take this disquiet very seriously, as I am sure they are doing, if only in the interests of those who serve the public and to adopt a policy of the greatest possible openness and the greatest possible willingness to open all the books. That is the reason which lies behind the suggestion which I have ventured to make to the Government today.
5.42 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and, I imagine, like all those who are about to speak, I do not intend to indulge in any Civil Service bashing. We live in a highly complicated society in a highly compli-
1116
cated world, and that demands a great deal of administration. It demands a great deal of bureaucracy and, within limits, bureaucracy is no bad thing. However, we must be quite clear that there is a limit to the amount of resources which can go into the administration of our society, and one of the factors which we must deplore is the tendency of this Government, by such measures as the Community Land Act, vastly to increase the numbers of civil servants who will be needed for administration, whose effects in other fields will not be demonstrably beneficial and may even be harmful.
Civil servants do a very good job on our behalf and they certainly need good pay and good security. Nevertheless, the job of Parliament is to keep a watchful eye on their conditions of pay, pensions and perquisites. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has told us that Ministers are responsible for deciding on levels of pay, and it is absolutely right that that should be so. But it follows from that that Ministers are responsible to Parliament, and that Parliament should keep a strong and steady eye on the situation.
I believe that there is still reason to think that perhaps at the present time Civil Service pay, pensions and perquisites are a little out of line. I entirely agree with the principle that they should be in line—I believe that the principle of comparability is an extremely good one—but there is reason to believe that they may not be in line at this moment. I do not think it is any answer to say—as has been said in the past—that this merely makes up for some times in the past when civil servants lost out. That may be so, but it is our business here to see that equality, parity, fairness are achieved at the present time and in the immediate future.
In commenting on this aspect, I want to make only two points. First, I want to take up the question which all noble Lords have so far taken up; that is, the indexing of pensions, inflation-proofing. There is a very considerable case for inflation-proofing as much as one can when inflation is not very great, but when there is considerable inflation there is very great danger in indexing. If there is a considerable amount of indexing but no great effort to get inflation down, then the indexing is itself inflationary and

1117
it adds to the problem. It is true that if you index at the same time as you are making a really head-on attack against inflation, you can do a very great deal of good. It can be an interim measure which can reassure people while you are tackling the problem of inflation. Brazil did this rather successfully. But at a time when inflation is rampant and is allowed to continue being rampant, indexing can be extremely damaging particularly if it is applied almost entirely to government service. We know that it is not entirely applied to government service but, despite what has been said, I still believe that only a very small proportion of people outside government service have their pensions indexed.
I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the Government about the attack on inflation at the present time. The noble Lord has said that in the future we can look forward to long periods when the wealth of this country is increasing. I hope that he is right; I do not see much evidence of it. We are told that the period of inflation which we have been through was an exceptional one. I hope that he is right; I rather doubt it. My impression is that the present Government will get inflation down to 7 or 8 per cent., which is not really tolerable in itself, but that that will not then become the maximum. It will be the start of another round of inflation, and I am not nearly so optimistic as the present Government about the future economic affairs of this country. However, I realise that that is a different subject from that which we are debating today, and I do not expect the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to deal with that point, except that he will no doubt rap me sharply over the knuckles because of my pessimism about this matter. I merely make that point about indexing. I was most interested in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and in his suggestions as to what steps might be taken if inflation continues to be rampant.
The other point which I want to take up, which I do not think has so far been sufficiently explored, is that of salary levels. We know that the principle is one of comparability, and we also know that very detailed studies are made. But something seems to go wrong when one looks at what people are paid inside the Civil Service and outside it. It is not
1118
just that, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said, when one takes an average some people are bound to be paid more and some are bound to be paid less. Without being at all professional, and without digging very deep, one can find whole areas where there is obviously no comparability.
I recently asked a Question in this House about the salaries of people starting to be chartered surveyors. I studied the Answer of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and I looked at my figures—which, incidentally, are not recommended figures; they are figures of recent appointments in both the public service and the private service—and there is no doubt that for people between the ages of 18 and 30 pay is 20 per cent. higher in the public service than it is for comparable jobs outside. I have consulted academics and past academics—not just those who are being paid at the moment who I thought would have an axe to grind—and the general impression (I admit that it is only a general impression) is that pay in the public service is about 50 per cent. above what it is in comparable academic jobs. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not here to comment on that point.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will have had his attention drawn to what I think is the third annual report of the Central Services Unit which is reported in today's Times. Although I have not had time to give the noble Lord warning of this question, I hope he will feel able to comment upon it when he winds up. The Times report says:
"The public sector is paying graduates starting salaries between £500 and £1,000 a year higher than those generally offered in private industry, according to university and college careers officers. …Mr. Brian Putt, the unit's director, said in London that industry was offering graduates starting salaries last September averaging £2,500 to £2,600 a year. …Mr. Norman Lloyd, chairman of the Standing Conference of University Appointment Services, said local authorities and the public service were paying starting salaries for graduates of between £3,300 and £3,600. Some were paying much more."
These may be exceptions, and I hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can reassure us that they are. However, these figures have come to light in the last few days without, as I say, very deep and detailed research and I think

1119
that we in this Parliament are entitled to ask what the position really is.
One of the reasons why I have not done more detailed research is that there are not very many sources from which to obtain information. I have talked to the Civil Service Pay Research Unit and they say that they do not know of any published comparison between the public service and the world outside. If there is none, it means that the only ones in existence are those which the Pay Research Unit have produced and which the Government use as their salary basis. Since we know that these comparisons exist and since they are the only ones, Parliament is entitled to see them. I do not think that the explanation that confidentiality is absolutely necessary to their preparation is a real defence. I cannot believe that it is impossible to provide comparability studies without giving away the identity of the various outside bodies and firms which have co-operated with the Pay Research Unit in preparing them. I should have thought that it was quite easy to publish the bare outlines of these studies and I think that this is essential if your Lordships' House, in common with another place, is to do its proper job. We want more open government and this applies to everything that the Government do.
To recapitulate, the Civil Service does a very fine job. We need a large Civil Service and civil servants are entitled to good pay, pensions and perquisites. However, it is very important that how this is arrived at should be inspected publicly and should be made known to the public and to their representatives in Parliament so that it can be seen to be fair. May I suggest very strongly that the present Government should take steps to ensure that this happens.
5.54 p.m.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, the Civil Service has never been immune from criticism—nor should it be, nor would civil servants wish it to be. In recent weeks and months, however, criticism has grown to a pitch which leaves one very uneasy because much of it has been ignorant, and all too much of it has been openly abusive. I confess that when I, as a former head of the Civil Service, first
1120
saw the Motion which had been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I wondered whether this was going to ease matters. In the light of today's debate and of the meticulously dispassionate way in which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, raised his issues, I am convinced that it is likely to do good and I welcome this opportunity of clearing the air.
The principles of settling pay in the Civil Service were defined in detail 20 years ago by the Priestley Royal Commission. The general principles, which Priestley did much to confirm and to define more clearly, went back even further than that. In principle, comparability has been the general basis for settling Civil Service pay for many a long year, but in the early days it worked fairly erratically. There was no systematic basis for making comparisons, nor was there any very satisfactory timetable for carrying out reviews in an orderly fashion. There has been a very great improvement in that respect in recent years.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given details of the way in which the Pay Research Unit works. From my own knowledge of these matters, I am able to say that the job is now done as fairly, dispassionately and accurately as is humanly possible. I admit, however, that it is a job that is done by civil servants and that it may be that there is a case for considering whether or not the process would appear better to the public eye if independent consultants, or whoever was thought suitable, were associated with it. I think that that may help.
Not only has the work of the Pay Research Unit been speeded up, but the operations of the Review Body which deals with the higher Civil Service have been systematised and made more regular. In the old days, such reviews operated about five years in arrears and very often the recommendations made stated expressly that they were not designed to achieve full comparability. One remembers that a published report of the Banks Committee about 12 years ago said precisely that they would have recommended more had they felt that the situation warranted it. It is of great value both in general and in particular to the Civil Service that these maters have been systematised, and the more that can be

1121
made known about the precise and meticulous way in which the operation is worked the better it will be.
I turn to pensions. I am unable to say a great deal about the subject because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Earl dealt with the subject offixing pensions in a way which I could not hope to do. However, I should like to emphasise that much recent public comment on Civil Service pensions has based itself on the assumption that everybody who retires has a claim to half pay—that is to say, that he has done 40 years' service and that his pay will be fully up to date at the point when he retires.
These assumptions, even if they are coming to be more nearly true, as regards the "up-to-dateness" of pay when the man retires, have never been generally true and are probably becoming less true as regards the 40-year assumption. In many parts of the private sector now, as the House will be aware, a period of 20 years has become the standard and there are many civil servants who, in one way or another, do not serve for much over 20 years. There are many members of the professional, scientific and medical side of the Civil Service who come in with outside experience and who have some maturity when they come in, and who certainly would not serve for 40 years. Nor does a Permanent Secretary serve for 40 years in the ordinary course of events, although there have been some who did.
Perhaps I may take a personal example as the clearest way of making my point: I myself was a civil servant for about 22 years. I had undertaken other work before that, but I was not unusual in that respect. I was unusual in that even in those circumstances I ended up as head of the Service. When I came to be pensioned I was entitled to about-one-quarter pay, on a salary which had been partially adjusted under the Franks Committee and had been waiting for four to five years for more complete adjustment. The result was that my quarter pay was calculated on a salary which is a good deal less than half of what my successor today is receiving. I mention that example, not out of any sense, of grievance—I was very well treated throughout my Civil Service career—but because there is a general impression
1122
abroad that in the Civil Service that sort of thing is never allowed to occur. If I may say so, the probabilities are on the other side: it is much more likely that in the private sector anybody who worked up over 20 years to be head of a major organisation would not be allowed to retire on that basis.
None the less, the principle of indexing pensions has raised a new issue in the last few years over which there is genuine public concern, and I think it is fair to say that that concern extends to some, at least, senior retired civil servants, one or two of whom begin to wonder whether they may be receiving a little more than is wholly appropriate in the present exceptional conditions. I think that anxiety would be valid only if one were to assume that inflation was going to continue unabated for some considerable time to come. Personally, at the present time I am not prepared to make that assumption. None the less, if it were thought that some such inquiry should be made as that suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, by way of allaying anxiety, I should certainly not wish to stand out against it.
But let us be clear that criticism of Civil Service pay and pensions—not in this House, but outside—is surely only a symptom of a general malaise. The Civil Service goes through phases when it is more than usually subject to criticism and more than usually unpopular, and undoubtedly in the last two or three years it has been going through some such phase. This is partly a matter of the growing size of the Service, to which reference has already been made. Perhaps these are different aspects of the same thing, but at least equally it is due to the ever-widening nature of the business which the Civil Service has to transact.
At present the public expenditure in the sense of expenditure controlled by central and local government has risen to about 56 per cent. of national income. This is an extraordinarily high figure: it is rising steadily, sometimes a little faster, sometimes a little slower, but it goes on rising whichever Party is in power. It is not a matter of Party politics. Also, it is not just a financial matter. The proportion of the national income which is spent under Government control is simply a manifestation of the range of the Government machine, the extent to which that

1123
machine is penetrating into the life of the country, and that penetration is only possible because the Civil Service is there to undertake it on the instructions of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, the Civil Service only does what it is told to do. But it is told to do a great deal, and this very high proportion of national income that is controlled under the auspices of Government is the measure of the extent of the task of the Civil Service. This surely accounts for a great deal of the unpopularity of the Service. They are asked to interfere in the business of other people and other firms, corporate business as well as private business, and undoubtedly there is a certain resentment.
But so long as we are to run our country in this way, so long as we are to have a highly developed Welfare State, something of this sort is necessary, and surely it is the more necessary that our Civil Service should undertake this work at the very highest possible standard. Let us not think that we could improve our situation in any way by allowing the standard of the Civil Service to be run down. Sometimes nowadays we are a little cautious about what we say of the Civil Service, lest it be thought that we want them to he an élite. In some other countries they are rather proud of having a Civil Service which they think represents the cream, as it were. This is not fashionable now in this country and I can see good reasons why that may be so. But let us make no mistake: unless we can continue to draw into the Civil Service a proper quota of the most able persons of the highest integrity, our lot as a country which is so thoroughly managed from the centre will be very unhappy indeed.
6.9 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, with great care in the hope that he would make some suggestions about the information that he gave to the House upon which we could consider future action. I was not clear at the end of his speech what conclusions he expected the House to draw. If the purpose of his speech was to illustrate facts, many of which he himself gave to the House, then I think his Motion has
1124
been successful, because we have heard a great deal of the facts of the Civil Service, its pay and pension arrangements, and different points of view upon them are now being laid before the House.
On the question of pay, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred to the Pay Research Unit and the need, perhaps, to have outside representation upon it, so that any fears that it was a Civil Service body operating in the interests of the Civil Service alone could be dispelled, and that their comparisons could be seen to be fair. I was the chairman of the Staff Side of the Civil Service Whitley Council at the time of the negotiations on the Report of the Priestley Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, as General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers at the time, shared with me the responsibility of deciding on behalf of the Civil Service what our attitude would be towards this new system of applying a new principle in affixing Civil Service pay. I am bound to warn the House that any disturbance of the fundamental principle of fair comparability would be received with grave unrest in the Civil Service.
My Lords, I was Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation for 38 years. I went from the 1920s to the 1960s, and saw all that happened. Not until 1955, when the Priestley Commission made a report to end the uncertainty, the strife, the disruption, the arbitration, the frustration which was felt by the Civil Service on the previous principle which was applied, that of the good employer, had we really any firm basis of comparison with anybody. The National Whitley Council Agreement of 1920 reorganising the Civil Service referred to the principle of pay in the Civil Service as being, a reflection of the conditions of employment of the good employer. We do not know who he was: we do not know where to find him, and we do not know what conditions of employment existed under him. He was a non-person. When we tried to quote a good employer at hearings of the Arbitration Tribunal, criticism was levelled at the informaion we presented on the ground that it was biased, inadequate, probably conveyed a misleading impression, and all the rest of it; we had no

1125
scientific basis of comparison. The Priestley recommendation was a refreshing change in the whole history of fixing pay in the Civil Service.
If the principle of fixing pay in the Civil Service had been accompanied by as clear a set of principles as those for fixing pay in the nationalised industries and the public sector generally, we should have had far less industrial unrest in the last 10 or 15 years. Where have all the strikes occurred?—in the public sector, outside the scope of the fixing of the principle of fair comparability which we have in the Civil Service, and the machinery for implementing it. I stress very strongly indeed the importance that the Civil Service attaches to the principle of fair comparability, and to the existence of the work of the Pay Research Unit, which is a necessary means of applying that principle. Let there be no mistake whatever about that!
What about the Pay Research Unit? This was a novelty. We were asking private industry to open its doors to roaming investigators who would go in and inspect jobs, see what people were doing, compare other jobs outside with Civil Service jobs inside; look at their conditions of employment; examine their standards of recruitment; consider whether they got free holidays, or whether their bus fares were paid: whether an allowance was given for their children, or whether at the disposition of the company concerned, they got other perquisites not heard of in the Civil Service. All these many quite delicate things once had to be elucidated in order to provide material on which to make fair comparisons. As my noble friend the Leader of the House explained, there is a weighing of the outside evidence with inside conditions, with pluses or minuses; tangible differences and intangible differences all have to be weighed and valued. Before it was possible to launch the Pay Research Unit, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Anthony Eden as he then was, had to circularise the industry to plead for the opportunity for investigators to go into private industry to seek the necessary information for fair comparisons.
When the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is no longer in his seat— there is nothing like making a speech and going out!—pleaded for more open information coming from the Pay
1126
Research Unit, he probably little understood the difficulty there was in getting the information even on a confidential basis. But the Civil Service has nothing to fear from more open information about fair comparability. It was not a condition of the Civil Service that this information should be confidential; it was a condition of the companies and employers from whom the information was sought. They laid down the rule about confidentiality, and if that could be lifted, there would be no difficulty whatever in regard to the material upon which negotiations take place being made available for public information.
I must stress that before we had the principle of fair comparability, we had a whole string of cases going to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal because of failure to reach agreement on what was a fair rate of comparison with conditions generally. Since the application of the principle of fair comparability, the need to go to arbitration has been enormously reduced. May I say in parenthesis that when the Stall Side has gone to the Arbitration Tribunal because of a dispute on the interpretation of the fair comparisons available, in the majority of cases the Staff Side has won its case; so I do not think the House need fear that there has been a lack of scrutiny or a lack of honest appraisal of the information obtained under the Pay Research Unit arrangement.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will allow me to interrupt, surely he would think there is some merit in broadening the manning of the Pay Research Unit to include some people from the private sector, such as management consultants and others—who, incidentally, find jobs for civil servants as well as for the private sector—who have a great knowledge of all this, and might contribute something to the overall knowledge?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have no particular observation to make on that, except to say that for reasons on which I will not dwell, the staff of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit is frequently changing. Their tour of duty with the Pay Research Unit is of limited duration. If people from outside were to come in to share in that work,

1127
it would be expected that their period of service with that Unit would be equally short. But that does not disqualify the idea in any sense whatever. I am merely saying it is not a job for life; it is not a job for a long time because of the circulation of people, with fresh minds being brought to bear on statistical information, and the inspection of jobs which this Unit has to undertake.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, ventured the general opinion that perhaps pay in the Civil Service was now out of line, and he instanced one or two examples where prima facie it might be thought that the entering salary, at any rate of graduates and others, was considerably higher than the salaries given to people of comparable academic qualifications going into industry. This, my Lords, was an aspect that I went into with the utmost care and the greatest possible depth when I was conducting an inquiry into teachers' pay. This indeed was one of the substantial clues to what was fair in the teaching profession, to find out what graduates of similar academic qualifications to those coming into the teaching profession would get elsewhere. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the comparison is by no means fair if you take into account only the entering salary or salary in the early years of service, because what we noticed was that in industry the graduate's rise to the glittering prizes of industry was far more rapid and spectacular than was ever possible in the teaching profession or in the Civil Service.
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to chartered surveyors, but what he did not say was that a large number of chartered surveyors are in private practice. You might just as well compare the pay of a solicitor in the Civil Service and of a solicitor being employed by another solicitor and think that is a fair comparison, without taking into account the fact that solicitors on the whole are in private practice; and chartered surveyors on the whole are in private practice. Indeed, review bodies have had to seek information from the Inland Revenue about the level of professional profits in a number of vocations in order to bring to bear some degree of fair comparison with the position of the salaried officer.
1128
To give another example, the Inland Revenue is the biggest employer of professional valuers anywhere. They employ far more people than anybody else. Does one merely look at salaried valuers in partnerships elsewhere, or does one look at what partners themselves are making as professional valuers and compare that in terms of the career expectation of professional recruits or academics in the public sector? These are the things that have to be taken into account. It is not enough to say that generally they may be out of line and quote one or two examples where prima facie there seems to be a disparity. Let us look at the same people five or 10 years from now and see where they are on the scale in private industry as compared with public service.
When it comes to perquisites, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I are both on the Salmon Commission on standards of conduct in public life. We are in a specially favourable position at the present moment to look at perquisites and see the straitlaced integrity of rules imposed on public servants, even at Christmas time when turkeys are on offer, and when there is no inhibition in industry in accepting them, but in the Civil Service there is. Let us be honest about this. If we are going to talk about perquisites, I can draw up a scale of perquisites in private industry which would make the civil servant green with envy. So these things have to be brought into perspective.
I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and I listened to his speech with the closest interest and welcomed his intervention in this debate—that he must be careful in suggesting that the principle of fair comparability goes again to independent investigation, when it has had so much already and when the Pay Research Unit has been there for 20 years and has done its job admirably to the peace and contentment of the Civil Service. He must be very careful in making the suggestion that it should be put out to the laundry again to see what a private independent investigating body would make of it, because this is so fundamental to peace in the Civil Service.
One of the reasons why it has been desirable to provide conditions which lead to a contented and loyal Civil Service is to avoid the infection of disruption and militancy and industrial action

1129
in the Civil Service which is so widespread elsewhere. What would the public say if the Civil Service, in different Departments and sections, were on strike every other month, downing tools here, walking out there, striking first and arguing later? The public has the spectacle of seeing the Civil Service at its work. The only time when the civil servant goes militant is when the Government interfere with the normal rhythm and cycle of the Pay Research Unit. Trouble has happened when that has been done.
Now we have the £6 pay limit, which applies to the Civil Service as to everybody else. The Pay Research Unit has been suspended. The normal cycle of reviews under those arrangements has been suspended, and the Civil Service has accepted that because it has confidence in the resumption of the normal machinery and the well-established principles fixing Civil Service pay. It is content to agree to this, along with everybody else, as a contribution to the fight against inflation. Do not strain that too far, because it would be a grievous day for Britain if one had a Civil Service which could not do its job, properly and contentedly, serving the public well, if it worked off its grievances against its clientele. We do not want people in the Civil Service brushing off their discontent against the public, nor indeed do we want the public brushing off their discontent against the Civil Service. This balance has to be struck and maintained all the time.
I will say a word or two about pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asked whether the Government had closed their minds to the idea of the contributory pension. My noble friend the Leader of the House made one comment on that. I would add two. One is that the widows and orphans element in the Civil Service superannuation scheme is already contributory. That is an important factor. The second is that, although the idea of a contributory scheme has been looked at time and again since the Tomlin Commission recommended it in 1931, I think one of the great difficulties has been funding. A contributory scheme employs some degree of funding, and this in the public sector is obviously a very difficult proposition. I was at one time an advocate of the contributory scheme because I believed that it was the only way of estab-
1130
lishing the right to pension. So vulnerable were the Civil Service pension arrangements at that time, so much at the hazard of pensions increase Bills and of the varying degree of compensation which Governments of the day would give, that I thought only by having a contributory scheme could one nail it to the wall.
The history of pensions increase Bills going back over the last 25 or 30 years is a grievous one. We have had it all; we have had means tests for improvement in pensions; we have had ceilings imposed on improvement of pensions; we have had a combination of the two. We have had tapering arrangements so that the higher pensions would get proportionately less than the lower pensions. We have had it all in Pensions Increase Acts since 1945, and I must have spoken on nearly every one in another place. None of them gave satisfaction; all of them created anomalies. Fancy a civil servant on pension having to declare his wife's income in order to qualify for an addition to his Civil Service pension on grounds of hardship! The humiliations which were heaped on the civil servant in those days would be unbearable today.
Again I must warn the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, not to be too free with the suggestion that all this can be put out to the wash for somebody else to have a look at and come back with the answers. That is the escape of the troubled mind. It is the escape of weak government. I welcome the steadying influence of the speech given by my noble friend the Leader of the House. That was the speech to make today. It does not of course commit any Government not to look at the situation as it may develop (and we hope for the better and not for the worse) in the next year or two. A Government would be foolish to say that there it is and there it sticks, because it might make the Civil Service unpopular and might give a sense of grievance to the public which, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, it would be difficult to hold. But do not let us at this stage suggest that all this can go out to further investigation when we have had a Royal Commission approximately every 10 years and when all this has been threshed out in such great detail before.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—I call him my "friend" because we are working together very

1131
closely in our public work—superannuation schemes in the Civil Service are well over 100 years old. There was superannuation in the Civil Service long before pension schemes were common in industry, and there has been a systematic improvement of the superannuation arrangements in the Civil Service over many years. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government in 1970 which decided to scrap the idea of the Crossman scheme which was going to graft the public sector pensions on to the State scheme. The Conservative Government decided to separate the two absolutely and clearly, and they then set about improving the Civil Service superannuation scheme, followed by similar improvements in other parts of the public sector, in order to show the way to private industry to the kind of superannuation scheme that they should adopt.
This was an example deliberately, purposely thrown out for industry to copy, and now we are beginning to criticise it because industry has not copied it, or is finding it difficult to keep up with it. Those difficulties are admitted, and let us be frank about that, and I am not committing myself beyond the immediate future on this matter. But why have we got a pension scheme in the Civil Service? Why have we had one all this time? It had its roots in the standard of recruitment, in the degree of loyalty and devotion to a lifetime vocation. That was the origin of the pension scheme; to keep people in the public service and to avoid frequent changes. It may not have quite the same validity today. Nevertheless, there is still something in the Civil Service pension scheme of great value to the efficiency and integrity of the public service.
Those are a few considerations which I suggest have to be borne in mind. I mention one further thing, and that is that under the Social Security Act 1975 it is provided that from 1978 Civil Service pensions should be linked with whatever changes are made in what is called the additional component of the new State scheme. There is to be a link there between the Civil Service and public sector superannuation scheme and the State scheme.
Finally, a word on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. He
1132
was chairman of the official side of the National Whitley Council; I was chairman of the staff side of the National Whitley Council, but never the twain did meet. We held our respective offices at different times. I was in the Government when he was Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and Head of the Civil Service. He referred to the fact that not everybody who goes on Civil Service pension draws the full amount that people assume he or she does. I must remind the House that there is still a very big grievance existing in the Civil Service on the disallowance of substantial periods of temporary or unestablished service for the purpose of calculating pensions. Those of us who were in the House of Commons and are now on a House of Commons' pension know what that was. We did not get all our Parliamentary service to count for a House of Commons pension. I lost five years out of 25. A lot of civil servants have been similarly deprived of a period of service in calculating their ultimate reckonable service.
My final word is that, notwithstanding the recent increase that has been given in Civil Service pensions, we still have the disparity between the pension of an officer currently retiring and the pension of an officer of comparable grade and service who retired two, three, five or 10 years ago. The pension of an executive officer who retired 10 years ago is still 16 per cent. below the pension currently being granted to an officer of the same grade and after comparable service. This shows the difference between topping up pensions by reference to the cost of living and not topping up pensions by reference to the improvement in wage and salary standards, and the Civil Service pension scheme fell behind by being adjusted to cost of living terms and not to the improvement in salary terms in the rest of the Civil Service.
I have spoken long enough, and there is a great deal else to be said. I welcome this debate. It may be the beginning of a further, closer examination of the problem which we all recognise exists. But I utter a warning. Do not hasten unduly to subject Civil Service conditions to further independent scrutiny unless there is strong ground for thinking that they are in need of further attention. Do not let it be an excuse for unfairness on the part of some, and weakness on the part of others.
6.37 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, said earlier no civil servant worth his salt would seek to be immune from criticism, but in this country, which has recently so often been said to be one of sectional interest where people pursue personal advantage and are envious of others, I must confess that I have found this constant denigration of the Civil Service in the media and publicly a most depressing symptom. Most of the allegations are quite unfounded, and I am sure both Past and present members of the Civil Service will be most grateful for the valuable and important contribution which the noble Lord the Leader of the House made earlier. He is not in need of any assistance from me, but I can add one statistic that may help some of the argument. There has been much talk of the tremendous growth in Government servants, but all of that applies to central Government and to local government. The service to which I had the honour to belong, and which has recently celebrated its 10th birthday under its new name, has reduced its total staff by 12 per cent. in that period. The Diplomatic Service, therefore, on an annual rate decreased its staff by at least 1 per cent. every year, so that is something to set on the other side.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, addressed his remarks to the" three p's"; pay, "perks", and pensions. I shall not have very much to say about either of the first two. On the first, I think it is accepted that if you want the best Civil Service you must give it reasonable conditions, and I think there is general agreement in this House this evening that the principle of comparability is a perfectly just one. As regards "perks", I can only say that I was a member of the Civil Service for 38 years and I never discovered any at all. Reference has been made to the boarding allowance, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, did not really refer to it in a derogatory sense as a "perk". I should like to say on that that in my own experience and my experience of others in the service the question of family is the most worrying one in the entire career of somebody who is serving abroad. Although, of course, I know that the boarding school allowance is an expensive item in present circumstances,
1134
I assure noble Lords that it is no compensation at all for the fact of forced separation from one's children when they are at an extremely important stage of their education and need parental attention more than at any other time.
I must comment on the question of pensions because the case is sometimes made that, owing to the multiplier effect of perhaps a series of different factors, a more generous final result is produced than might otherwise have been expected. I do not think this is true in general. I do not think it is by any means true of the average pensioner, but it may have some validity in relation to people at the top of the Service, particularly in times, as at present, of rampant inflation. There is, first, the percentage factor. It seems to me that there is an inherent unfairness about percentages and, indeed, this is recognised in the current anti-inflation policy with the flat rate increase of£6 a week on incomes. But pensions are based on salaries and a cost of living increase is paid as a percentage of the existing pension. It does not seem to me self-evident that, with an increase of 25 per cent.—and the present increase is just over that—if it is right for a pensioner on £1,000 a year to receive an increase of £250 a year, it is therefore, automatically, equally right for a pensioner on £10.000 a year to receive £2,500.
The position of pensioners is compounded by two other facts; in the case of senior staff, since the pension is based on a salary which is itself unduly inflated to take account of the very high incidence of taxation at the top levels, and, secondly, perhaps sometimes by the earlier date of retirement that is now generally adopted in order to open up opportunities for younger members of staff, and the retiring age, which used to be about 65, is now more normally 60, and in the case of the Diplomatic Service there are special conditions and there is provision for premature retirement with sometimes very generous terms. But the fact is that most of us are now living a good deal longer and many—this House is a very eloquent example of this fact—are still extremely active well after 60. The second point is the counter-inflation policy. There seems to be an apparent conflict with this since pension increases can exceed £6 a week—this

1135
applies to quite a number of Government pensioners—and can also break through the £8,500 upper ceiling. That, in fact, could apply only to a small handful right at the top.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has far more experience of these matters than I could possibly claim, made clear, pensions are an extremely intricate and complicated matter. They depend on arrangements often made decades back in circumstances quite different from those obtaining today; they are on a contractual basis and they frequently have statutory provision. The first requirement in this matter seems to me to ensure that the men and women who devote a lifetime of service to the State receive fair treatment, but the second requirement is perhaps equally important, as has been said before in this debate; that is, that treatment should not only be fair but be seen to be fair. As the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, mentioned, I can confirm that there are certainly some former senior civil servants who, in the national interest, would gladly accept voluntarily some reduction in the increases that have been applied. But this is not an easy thing to do; it may appear invidious and it may be awkward to come forward on one's own, because equally there are, I think, others who were in the Service, who have incurred commitments and who would feel it a grave injustice if any diminution were to be made in their just allotments.
Whichever view we take, all of us are, of course, concerned about the reputation of the Service. I was very glad to hear the Lord Privy Seal say that the Government would in future take careful note and would review the arrangements if the present inflation were to continue at a high level. Indeed, I was attracted by the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that there should be an inquiry. I had indeed thought of this myself—there was no collusion between us—but I had not thought of so wide-ranging an inquiry as the noble Earl suggested, and I see the force of some of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, put forward on this issue. There is a psychological point here as well as a mathematical or financial one, and it seems to me that
1136
there would be some advantage if these arrangements could be looked at as a whole, preferably by a body that is recognised as impartial, something per. haps on the lines of the inquiries that are at present conducted by two noble Lords of this House; the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. If the Government were to see fit to do this, it might help to take some of the steam out of the controversy and should help to dispel this worrying impression that the Civil Service has somehow secured a special advantage for itself at the expense of the community as a whole.
The future of all of us depends on Britain's recovery and this will come about only, in the first place, if we ail work harder, but also if we can continue to secure a measure of restraint by all sections of the community. This will come about only if it is based on a feeling of fairness to all, so that particular claims are not pressed against the national interest. I believe that if matters can be seen in perspective—and I hope that this debate has played a considerable part in enabling that to be done—this could play a not inconsiderable part in the major task that faces us; that is, of overcoming inflation, which is the root of all evil and the root of a good deal of the malaise which lies behind the criticism of the Civil Service.
6.48 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, those who have spoken in the debate so far are, in the main, noble Lords who have had a close association with the Civil Service over a period of years. I draw the attention of the House to the terms of the Motion, which says in the latter part:
"…and in particular to the comparison between these and the benefits of private sector employees …".
It is that passage to which I wish to refer. Generally speaking, the average person considers the Civil Service to be an institution rather well cushioned from the bleaker winds of economic adversity. That is not unfair, and I served my time originally in engineering workshops.
Consider, for example, my trade union, which has about 1 million members. I suppose that about 750,000 of them work in private industry. The remaining

1137
250,000—if that is the figure—who are in the public sector, are considered the more fortunate of our brethren. Consider two men who go into the engineering trade, as I did originally. One of them may go into a local government job. He keeps his nose clean and he behaves himself and is not particularly truculent and at 60, after 40 years' service, he retires under the superannuation scheme on a comfortable competence with perhaps half or two-thirds pay. Another chap in the same town may enter an engineering firm. Through 40 years he will bear the heat and burden of the day. He will go out on strike for better conditions—something which rarely happens in local government—and will face the full blast of foreign competition and will be locked out from time to time. At the end of the day he will not retire comfortably at 60 or 65. Indeed, he may probably find himself finishing up on supplementary benefit. Noble Lords misunderstand the position if they do not recognise that there is a deep-seated resentment of the "two nations" in our society. Therefore, this afternoon's debate is a rather limited one, restricted as it is to the better-heeled section of the community.
The position is of course not helped when people read in the paper that a man who has held a prominent position in the Civil Service has retired and within a month or two has taken a job with a bank at £35,000 a year. It may be said that that is an individual case, but these are the cases which the Press speaks of and they are cases which cause deep resentment. I consider that the present Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers did a bad service to the cause of egalitarianism when they allowed such a position to arise. If we say that justice must be seen to be done, it seems to have been very uneven in that case.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose friend I am very glad to be, spoke with his familiar truculence on behalf of the causes he has upheld for a lifetime as an ex-Chairman of the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. We are very selective when we consider the public service. When I went into the House of Commons over 25 years ago, I sacrificed my superannuation rights and went into a vocation—or if your Lordships wish, an avocation—to which no pension was attached at the end of the
1138
day. One had to pay for public service. This was brought to a head in about 1958 by the death in a road accident of one of the more brilliant young Members of the House, the late Wilfrid Feinburgh, who left five children. The Labour Party had to set up a benevolent fund to look after them and other similar cases. For many years I was the chairman of that fund and my noble friend Lord Houghton was the treasurer. We did rather better than the Conservative Party because when our colleagues were defeated at Election time, as they often were, we had to mount a rescue operation.
I remember that the 1959 Election was a particularly distressing one and in 1970 I had to attend to no fewer than 70 Members of the House who found themselves in difficulty. Whenever it was suggested that the remuneration of Members of Parliament should be increased we would find that, despite a vote of the House of Commons—Winston Churchill ran away from a vote and it was only Macmillan who had the courage to mount a rescue operation properly and to put up the pay—we could expect the usual leading article from The Times saying that being a Member of Parliament was a noble calling but that it ought not to be remunerated as are lesser men.
I was also associated with my noble friend Lord Houghton in his Private Member's Bill to set up the Boyle Committee. Mr. William Whitelaw, who was Leader of the House and who is a man of great humanity, understood the problem. I can think of Members of Parliament who were almost household names and who served the State with great distinction but who were neglected at the end of the day. Among the legislative and elective element there are only two pensions, one for the Lord Chancellor and the other for the Speaker of the House of Commons. The latter gets a pension so that he shall not accept any job when he has retired. This was laid down by Earl Baldwin who said that a Speaker of the House of Commons must look neither to the right nor the left but, having held the greatest Commons Office in the State, must retire on a pension. I believe that what is good for the Speaker of the House of Commons ought to be good for the Head of the Civil Service. It was a great mistake when there was a breach in that principle.

1139
I do not want to harp on that point except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, prayed in aid the fact that Members of Parliament would get the benefit of the increased pension—the 21 per cent. or whatever it was. The noble Lord has never been a Member of the other place and he cannot have known what he was talking about. That applied only to Members of Parliament who were in in 1964 andl who were permitted a 10-year allowance for their services. I can think of a noble Baroness—and she reminded me of this this afternoon—who lost her seat in 1959 and found herself without anything at all. Public service to the State through elected Office is not properly looked after. I notice that there is now a great deal of bleating because we pay people in local government a lost time allowance, but I remember that for many years before I went into the other place I returned a lower rate of income tax as an engine fitter because of the amount of lost time which I incurred through public service on local and county councils.
We speak of people being kept above corruption and we have the Salmon Commission which is looking at this. I hope that it will tinge justice with humanity and memory in dealing with this matter. Nye Bevan said in his last speech:
"The burdens of public life are too great to be borne for little ends."
They may be too great to be borne for little ends but they were borne for very little remuneration or public gratitude. There is no question at all about that and I have always been rather proud to have been associated with the other place because, whatever may have been said about it, its Members have always done what they thought was urgently important. They were prepared to bear the heat and burden of the day and they and their wives suffered financially because of it. All the way down the line, with every good thing that can be said for civil servants, they are being cushioned by the efforts of people like my noble friend.
I believe that part of the discontent was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he spoke at the end of his speech of the kernel of the matter being the increase of manpower in the public service. I have studied legislation over
1140
a period of years. I can think of no more incompetent piece of legislation—including the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, which was bad enough—than the scheme for the extension of local government which was brought in under the last Government. One has only to consider the local government chronicles and the lists and the salaries which they are offering. The present Prime Minister has been rather careful always to cut the increment of Ministers. He did so in 1964, and again later on, and he has never given them the full entitlement.
But there is no doubt about it, the Clerks of what were regional or county councils were getting far more than the Ministers of State to whom they were accountable. Such a situation has gone on elsewhere in exactly the same way. When doing some research on a subject about which I had some knowledge I found that in 1826 the Speaker of the House of Commons was getting £6,000 a year, while the Clerk was getting something over £1,000. A Committee considered the matter and it stopped him selling the gold plate back to himself and reduced his salarly to £5,000. But consider how the position of the Clerk has come up over the years. The Clerk of the House of Commons now receives much more than the Speaker himself, and I suppose that the Clerk's salary is approaching that of the Prime Minister. We must bear in mind here that Ministers are bearing the great responsibilities of Office.
These are the sort of matters against which the Civil Service is judged: that is, the responsibility which civil servants carry, and what happens to them at the end of the day. As one who joined the Labour Party in 1918, I am not satisfied with the present set-up. I want to see an extension of national superannuation so that it takes in every member of my trade union, and so that people, whether in the public sector or the private sector, can have honourable and dignified retirement. The whole of our superannuation schemes are built on the idea that "unto them that hath, shall be given".
We are now passing into a phase of depression, and there will be considerable unemployment in the engineering industry. Chrysler is up for sale. All these jobs, whether or not they are in local authorities, will continue to be the

1141
prize jobs. We have had such a long period of full employment that the public sector tends to discount the risks which fall upon those who work in the private sector.
This speech may be a bit off the beam so far as the Motion is concerned. But this House would help its own dignity and its worth in public life if it were to include the whole picture and did not continue to have debates that are partial and selective. I do not want to say an unkind word about civil servants or the pensions they receive. All I am concerned about is that, when we share out the national cake, those who help to pay for it—by industry and otherwise —shall also be in favourable circumstances at the end. I found how true the situation was when I was reading an article in the business section of the Sunday Times. The article contained a cartoon, showing a little man--probably an engineer—and on his shoulders he was bearing layer upon layer of admistration and infrastructure. He had to keep the lot of it.
We are not finished; we are going on to devolution, and that will be another lot which someone will have to keep at the end of the day. Before we know where we are we shall be the most over-governed country in the world. I tell your Lordships this: the most efficient unit of production is one man working on his own in exactly the same way that the most civilised idea of conversation is that of two men speaking to one another. To the extent that that is multiplied it is made less efficient; to the extent that the circle of the conversation is extended exhibitionism is brought in, and at the end of the day, I have no doubt, nations go to war. That is what really happens. We want to get back to the individual unit and the individual responsibility. In case anybody says that this is turning on the Socialism on which I was brought up, I should remind him that it was the late Lord Snowden who said that Socialism was the individual properly clothed.
7.5 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of GRASMERE: My Lords, I want to speak to only one quite restricted point about pensions. I ought to declare an interest, because as I retired 12 years ago from being a university
1142
vice-chancellor, my pension is index linked. Although it was 12 years ago, and salaries were very different then, I am immensely grateful for the index linking. Someone said—I am afraid that I cannot remember whether it was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, or the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; or perhaps it was neither of them—that index linking was a great milestone. It was a great milestone! Index linking for National Insurance pensions has made more difference, I suppose, than one would ever have thought it possible for any action of Government to make. When I was a young man in Germany, in the days when these matters were highlighted parts of our lives, in the 'twenties, we knew very well how our friends—academic, and others—and their widows suffered and starved. If anything that was said or done about pensions, or said or done about index linking, was in any danger whatever of risking index linking to National Insurance pensions, it would be a most terrible thing and clearly not worth anything that could be saved on anything that could be done elsewhere.
But it is a fact that some of the pensions mentioned that are index linked seem to be very high. A figure of £9,500 —and then to be index linked—is clearly high. I am not pretending to know very much about these matters, but I have been very much impressed by the heaviness of the guns in speaking about pensions and salaries—especiallyabout salaries. I have in mind something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and some things said by the noble Lord, Lord Garner. I should have had to try to say those things myself in introducing my brief remarks had the noble Lord, Lord Garner not already said them. But he said them very much better than I would have been able to do. So I will not attempt to repeat what he said about some of the considerations that come to the minds of many people—including his mind, and the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and the minds of some of his friends—about this question of index linking for these very high pensions at a time of really great national stringency. I have in mind the £6 a week limit and such matters.
I am told that a number of ex-Permanent Secretaries and other high civil servants who are now retired have actually

1143
approached the Government to speak on this point, and to emphasise that there are a number of them who feel strongly that in present circumstances—in this period of the £6 a week limit—it is rather difficult to regard it as quite right for these very high pensions to be index linked in quite the same way. If it is the case, as I am told, that a number of these ex-senior civil servants have approached the Government on this matter, it would be welcome if the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government could refer to this because I have not seen this point mentioned. Bearing in mind the many things that have been said about the Civil Service and about the type of people who are civil servants, this would seem to be a matter of great public interest.
I turn to my second, small point. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, I had 42 years of service to count towards my pension, so I have known something about pensions, of one kind of another, in the public service for a very long time —both for myself and for other people, of course. If I remember rightly, up to, I suppose, 1971 the calculations on the fraction per year of service were tapered in the case of some of the very high level people. I do not remember in detail how much they were tapered, and so on, but I believe they were tapered. I believe that that stopped in 1971. I suppose there must have been very good reasons indeed for that, but of course it has a bearing on the point I am referring to about the very high-level pensions and the representations and feelings of many people about them. Those are the only two points that I wish to make to your Lordships.
7.10 p.m.
Lord GEDDES of EPSOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, twice said in the course of his remarks that he had no desire to undermine principles. He then went on to suggest, however, that the Government should look at the whole question of pay and conditions in the Civil Service with a view to changing policy. Of course, you cannot change policy on these matters without breaking agreements. Is the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, in favour of breaking agreements? He will not be able to answer that, of course, because he will not have heard me say it. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made
1144
some reference to what would happen if any attempt was made to change these agreements. We have been in the position over many years that the Civil Service is one of those bodies which will never fight for its rights. I am bound to inform your Lordships that in my opinion—and I have some experience—any attempt to try to interfere with the present basis of arriving at wages or with the present system of pay and pensions would result, not in a minor strike which fails, such as we had recently in the postmen's strike, but in an upheaval in the administration of this country which could not for many years be overcome.
Much is being said about the cost of pensions. Of course they cost money. But certainly for as long as I have been connected with the Civil Service—and that goes back to 1911—it has been a principle accepted by all sides (by the official side, by the unions and by the staff side) that pensions were deferred pay. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord, Helsby, would challenge that. The principle has been that pensions are deferred pay; in other words, the civil servant draws his pension, not because of a gracious act on the part of the employer but because he has in fact saved that money by having a reduced salary over the years during which he has been employed. It is not a gracious act; it is deferred pay and he is entitled to that pension.
Then we come to the question of the amount. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, one might come to the conclusion that every pensioner in the Civil Service retired on £8,000 a year or more. The noble Lord based his argument mainly on that position. which, of course, is utterly absurd. There are thousands of civil servants who retire as clerical officers or on the salary of clerical officers—thousands of non-industrial civil servants and thousands of industrial civil servants. in fact, there are more people retiring below the salary of an executive officer than there are those who retire at or above that salary. But may I put this to your Lordships? The average service on retirement of a clerical officer is 25 years. Again, we have the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, talking about 40 years' service, talking about a gratuity based on 40 years' service and talking about forty-eightieths

1145
as being the pension. But if you take the average service—and I am taking the average of the clerical officer—such a civil servant retires on twenty-five-eightieths, not forty-eightieths; and his gratuity is not a year and a half's salary but is less than one year's salary. Therefore, we can get hopelessly confused and hopelessly biased if we try to judge this issue solely on the basis of those who retire on the higher rates of salary.
My Lords, let us examine this for a moment. If you have a system of pay and pensions, must that system not apply to everyone? Are you going to bring in a man as a clerical officer at 18 years of age and say, "Your pension when you retire in, perhaps, 40 years' time will be based on eightieths", and then, in 10 or 15 years. when he is promoted to another grade, are you going to say to him, "But now your pension will not be based on eightieths; it will be based on something different"? Then, when he gets a little higher in the scale, are you going to say, "The basis of your pension will now change again, and it will be based on something quite different"? This, surely, is utterly absurd. You must have a system, and that system must apply, surely, throughout the whole of a man's career, whether he finishes up as a clerical officer or as the head of a Department.
My Lords, let me now talk about job security—and I shall try not to be long. We talk about job security in the Civil Service on the basis that nobody appears to get the sack; or, at least, that very few do. But is there not another side to that coin? Why is it assumed that because very few people get the sack therefore a number of inefficient people are employed? Why can we not accept the simple position that there are very few inefficient civil servants? Then it is said "Ah! But of course there must be inefficient civil servants. There must be!" Why must there be? You have to bear in mind, I submit, that the type of man or woman who comes into the Civil Service comes in intending to make it a life's career. They come in looking upon the Service as a job that they want to do. They want to serve the country, they want to be loyal to the Service and give loyal service; and, therefore, there is no need to sack them, because they are doing their job as they were intending to do it.
1146
If you look at job security from the point of view of the Civil Service being very good indeed because nobody is sacked, then I suggest that you are looking at it from a completely wrong point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, suggested that it would be a good thing if you added consultants to the Pay Research Unit, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, tended to agree with him. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, because he suggested—I may have misheard him, but I do not think I did—that the consultants he had in mind were expert in assessing job value. But this is to completely misconceive the PRU. The PRU is not a wage-fixing body; it is not the body that fixes wages. All that the PRU does is to prepare the statistics which form the basis of discussions which can take place subsequently to determine the wages The fact that you have a consultant who is an expert in job evaluation has nothing to do with the PRU. The function of the PRU has been explained in full by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is not a wage-fixing body; it is a body which prepares facts. If it is thought that an outside economist might do better, that is one thing; but, after examining the qualifications of the members of the PRU, I doubt whether one could much improve on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was congratulated on his research. His research may have been good but I am going to suggest, with the greatest of respect, that his research did not go back far enough. What he did not do was to try to find out what gave rise to the Priestley Committee recommendation. I suggest—I may be wrong and, if so, I apologise—that he has not studied the evidence given by the trade unions to the Priestley Committee on this matter. I suggest that he is not aware of the main point made in one part of the evidence by my union: that it was of absolutely paramount importance to get an agreed basis on which to discuss wages.
My noble friend Lord Houghton has already referred to it. Over the years each side would prepare their facts. There would then be a disputation on which of the facts presented by each side were relevant to the case. Having done that, there was then a long disputation as to the interpretation of the facts, even

1147
if they were agreed. Then one finally reached a situation where, because there was an arbitration clause in the Civil Service agreement, the official side elected to go for arbitration as a matter of alibi with the Treasury so that they would not be blamed for coming to the agreement.
My Lords, I have lost faith completely in arbitration. I began to do so when the Government of the day decided to abolish the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. It was generally agreed among trade union leaders at that time that this had been done because the IDT, by and large, tended to favour the workers. But what shattered my belief in arbitration was an incident which occurred when I was a member of that Tribunal. We were examining facts and the facts showed that the lower paid were entitled to an x amount increase. In my innocence I argued that since the facts were exactly the same they should apply also to the higher grades—only to be informed by one of the independent members of the Tribunal, someone isolated: "We do not do that sort of thing". If he did not do that sort of thing, what did he do? I suggest that what he did was to become a wage regulating body, something which the arbitration courts were never intended to be. I came to the conclusion that arbitration on those lines was no good to me and no good to the workers generally. So we submitted evidence to the Priestley Committee suggesting that there should be an agreed basis between each side.
My Lords, I am going to close on this. What a wonderful thing it would have been if over the last 20 years there had been an agreed basis between the employers and the trade unions as to what should determine increases in wages! What a wonderful thing that would have been! What a remarkable change would have taken place in industrial relations! The introduction of the new form of wages claim, the claim for a substantial increase in pay, had in it the ingredients of absolute disagreement; for how could employers and workers possibly agree on what was substantial? Inevitably the seeds of disagreement were there from the moment the claim was put on the table because there was no basis on which to determine what was substantial and what
1148
was not. This led to the present system of, "Stand and deliver!" and, "I want a substantial increase in pay; and if I do not get it. …" If, 20 years ago, there had been, not the Civil Service basis, but an agreed basis, on which both sides would go into a wage discussion and be able to say: "This is the basis on which we are going to come to an agreement. These are the facts. What is the result?", then the economy of this country and its future could have been entirely different. Therefore when you talk about undermining the present system of pay in the Civil Service, think back. Think how much better it would have been if it had been applied universally.
7.27 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the nay or pensions or "perks" in the Civil Service nor do I wish to discuss figures; except that I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, who gave the example of the £1,000-a-year pensioner who got an increase of £250 compared with the £10,000 pensioner who got £2,500, that by the time Mr. Healey had dealt with the £2.500 the one would not have been very different from the other. Therefore, I do not think these global sums have any great meaning. My concern is a much simpler one. I suppose that traditionally the Civil Service has been as good a subject for music hall jokes as mothers-in-law. But these were almost always good-natured banter and there was an underlying conviction in the public mind of complete confidence in the Civil Service and in its integrity. My concern is that it seems to me that in the last six months there has almost been a campaign—a rather vicious campaign—against the Civil Service which inevitably will to some extent impact on public opinion.
It is reasonably true that public opinion may become, or perhaps is becoming, increasingly disenchanted with Parliament. But that disenchantment is no justification for criticism of the Civil Service. Perhaps they are becoming increasingly concerned at the level of public expenditure, but, again, that is no ground for criticism of the Civil Service. The Civil Service must not suffer for the misdeeds of their political masters who arc responsible in these matters. I am not a civil servant. I have never

1149
been a civil servant; but I have negotiated and worked with senior civil servants for 30 years—not always in agreement with them, not always (to be fair) even in harmony, but always with the deepest respect for their ability and integrity. That is my concern in this matter, a point to which reference was made both by the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in their speeches.
If there is the slightest measure of corruption it is headline news in this country. But why is it headline news? It is because it is a rare event. There are other countries where such an occurrence would not even have been thought newsworthy because it would be almost a daily occurrence. I greatly fear that these attacks in the media—in the Press —could seriously affect the morale of the Civil Service, and this to me would be a matter of the gravest possible concern. I believe we probably have the best and certainly the highest standard of integrity of any Civil Service in the world. It is therefore imperative from this House to put on record our complete confidence in that service, and in its standards of integrity, which is of the greatest importance to the welfare of the nation. Most of us have visited many countries; some of us have worked with Civil Services in other countries. I greatly welcome the debate in order that our House may make clear to the public that we have complete confidence in the integrity of the Civil Service, as we have always had.
7.32 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY:My Lords, I have an interest to declare in this debate. I served overseas for 30 years and I am an overseas service pensioner. It would be out of keeping with the custom of your Lordships' House for a speaker following on what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potter hill, said, not to have appreciated everything he said about the Civil Service. I am a member of the executive committee of the Overseas Pensioners' Association. We have a London office, a full-time Secretary and a small staff to deal with the problems of pensioners in this country and officers who have settled overseas. Many problems in this connection have arisen with overseas Governments in many quarters of the globe.
1150
I will not weary your Lordships with all the details with which our Association has been involved in negotiations with Governments of both complexions, Labour and Conservative, in this country since 1960 when we were formed here. In all humility, we have endeavoured to co-operate with the situation in Britain while protecting the rights of overseas pensioners. At all times we have been fortunate to be able to maintain an excellent relationship with Members of both Houses of Parliament and with various members of the Government. It so happens in this connection that we were included with others in Section 3 of and Schedule 3 to the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1962. Then it was considered equitable that our position should be further protected in the 1971 Pensions (Increase) Act which consolidated the law bringing the colonial overseas pensioner into line with home service pensioners and the Armed Forces.
It may be appropriate for me to say at this stage that there is a distinction between the 1 million to 1¼million public service pensioners excluding the Armed Forces and ourselves. Today we number just below 12,000 pensioners, and so at present we are a comparatively small fraction of the total number of pensioners enjoying pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act. We are in fact a dying race. The Colonial pensioners in the not too distant future will become completely extinct. As your Lordships are aware, there is no further recruitment to the Colonial overseas service so there will be no pension liability due to us in due course, which may be of some comfort to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing.
I listened carefully to Lord Orr-Ewing's remarks and to the reply of the noble Lord the Leader of the House to that speech. I greatly preferred the speech of the Leader of the House. Of course, I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in his arguments regarding the present difficulties in the business world. He was effectively answered in this connection in the speech which was made by the Leader of the House. I further appreciate the difficulty in drawing distinctions at this time between pay and pensions in the business world and pay and pensions in industry. But my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing must understand that the pensions drawn by pensioners today were

1151
earned by service extending over many years back from the year 1975—in my own case from 1925 to 1955. Is my noble friend going to tell us that business over that period was never prosperous? It was far more prosperous then than it is today. The salaries of those in the Service overseas, and the emoluments drawn by civil servants at that time, were considerably less than the salaries drawn in industry. The individual had to choose: opt for a Civil Service appointment with greater security and a pension, or the greater risk and the prospect of higher remuneration in industry.
If I may return to something in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, he referred to a feeling in industry, particularly the engineering industry, that the situation regarding emoluments was far less favourable to them than might be the case of people who were enjoying civil servants' pay and pensions. I well understand how people in the engineering industries in this country may feel in that connection. To me it seems largely a matter of choice. You can choose what career you follow and you take the consequences of what might happen in any particular section of that work which you do.
To turn to other matters in connection with overseas pensioners, and with reference to industry itself, when I served overseas people in industry were permitted at that time as a matter of course to invest in the share market of overseas companies. Under the Colonial regulations, which were applicable to all civil servants serving in overseas territories, it was absolutely forbidden to have any investment by way of shares in any company in the country in which an overseas service officer was serving. If he did not comply the penalty was to be sent home on the next boat and to be dismissed from the Service. The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, referred to the requirements of very high integrity which were necessary in the Civil Service. I have no reason to believe that those people who are responsible for our Civil Service in this country at the present moment do not require an equally high degree of integrity in whatever capacity they are serving in Britain today. In conclusion, my Lords, I do not think that the 12,000 Colonial civil servant
1152
pensioners—who, as I have said, are about to become a dying race in the not too distant future—with all the Pensions (Increase) Acts, inflation-proofing and so on, on average draw more than £2,400 a year. There might be one or two in the larger group embracing civil servants drawing £8,000 in the wider bracket to which the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred, but I do not think there can be more than one or two. I believe the noble Lord referred to the larger category of civil servants numbering 70,000, of whom he thought 70 might be drawing something in the region of £8,000.
I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in this debate and more than grateful for the manner in which so many of your Lordships have spoken in favour of the justice which is now being done in regard to the pensions paid, particularly to the overseas civil servants, in accordance with the arrangements agreed between the Governments concerned. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that there exist no more loyal individuals than the overseas service pensioners and also that the pensions they at present enjoy are only just adequate—really no more than that—for these people in their retirement.
7.41 p.m.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, perhaps you will forgive me if I make a short intervention in this debate. As I think is well known, no one believes more strongly than I that speeches in this House and elsewhere are getting longer and ought to be diminished. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships for long, but I have a message to convey.
For a good many years I happened to have a connection with the Civil Service —and let me hasten to add that it was both part-time and non-pensionable. That was for me a most rewarding and valuable experience, and I have the greatest respect and affection for many of those whom I met at that time. I may say that one of them was my old chief, now the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. It happens that some of the friends I made then suggested to me only a few days ago that it might be a good idea if I tried to convey to this House what some of them were thinking about the matters we have been discussing today. In fact these characters happen to be precisely those who were

1153
mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere. These are people, all of them retired of course, who have held high positions in the Civil Service —normally Permanent Secretaries or the equivalent—and they were all extremely worried, to put it no stronger than that, about receiving these extremely large increments in their pensions. I cannot tell the House the names of all these people, partly because some of them are actually involved in negotiations or in positions where to make a public display over this matter would be embarrassing. But I am sure that Sir Gilbert Flemming, who was for years Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Education, and Sir Paul Sinker, who was once First Civil Service Commissioner before the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, and who later became the Director-General of the British Council, would not be worried if I were to mention their names. I think they would agree that I am trying to represent accurately their thoughts and their feelings.
As I have said, all these people are retired civil servants of high rank and they are all getting large pensions. They have canvassed opinion among persons like themselves, and out of 13 they found that nine were in substantial agreement. They agree on these proportions: first, they think that the horrible phrase "inflation proofing"—my Lords, what are we doing to the English language; it is worse than "index linking"!—may very well be all right for the lower levels. But at the levels with which they are concerned, the levels at which they exist, they find it worrying. Secondly, although they think it is too late to do anything about the recent increase, they would like the Government at least to consider the position in the terms they are suggesting before the next round of increases. In this respect I am perfectly sure that they would welcome the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and may I say that we were all delighted to hear him on his feet again in this House. Thirdly, they would say that in fact when we are dealing with counter-inflation measures and trying to get people to accept pay limitations and limitations on everything, it is not a particularly good example to have persons who have held great positions in the affairs of the State cheerfully receiving large increases—and not only large absolute increases, but
1154
large relative ones. Perhaps I ought to mention a name here, and I will mention Sir Paul Sinker, who would say, "If we don't give a lead, who will?" Anybody who knows Sir Paul will know that he would express that in robust, old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon English.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, asked whether the Government had received representations from these persons. We all know that they have, and I am afraid that I shall have to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House what comments the Government have to make on representations made in precisely this sense. I speak tonight only as a messenger boy, but I cannot help saying that I feel rather proud to be one. It gives me a certain satisfaction to reflect that responsible persons are for once acting responsibly, or at least with imagination—and I had almost forgotten what that was like. I believe that this example, which is quite small in itself—it cannot possible extend to many people —would do great good to the image of the Civil Service if it was made known that such feelings were being expressed.
The Civil Service can do with a certain brightening up of its reputation. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill—although perhaps I would put it over a longer period than he suggested—that there is no doubt at all that the psychological or spiritual reputation, if you like, of the Civil Service has been definitely on the decline. I think one can tell that rather easily if one is dealing with some of the highly able and intelligent young people. The Civil Service is getting its fair quota of the Beta pluses, the good, sound, sensible people; but from my own limited experience I would say that it is not getting the absolute "stars". People who would have thought very hard and earnestly about going into the Civil Service when I was young, some 30 or 40 years ago, now tend to reject the idea. That is a great pity. You cannot have a good society without a good Civil Service, and to attract people you need more than good pay and more than even good pensions. If you are sufficiently able and ingenious—as, by definition, the people I am thinking of are—you can make similar contrivance by becoming a bookmaker.

1155
What people of the highest quality want is to go into work where they feel that they are of use to society and where society recognises that they are fulfilling a useful role, which is equally important. Both are important—the second quite as much as the first—and the danger is that we may be losing that quality. Therefore, the spirit that my old friends are now showing would seem to be a part of what the intelligent young would like to feel and which might attract them into following these older men.
7.50 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I hesitated before rising to speak, but the Armed Forces have not been at all mentioned in this debate and I thought I should mention them. I have to declare an interest, because I am President of the Officers' Pension Society, but I am really speaking for the Armed Forces. I should like to make only two points in the interests of brevity. The first is that an average Lieutenant-Colonel—who was poorly paid for 20 or 30 years and retired in 1960, so he has 15 years of retirement behind him—probably drew £2,448in pension, whereas a Lieutenant-Colonel retiring today draws £3,617. The difference of £1,200 may not be a lot, but it means a great deal to those people. Furthermore, such officers had great responsibilities. They were either driving a submarine or an expensive aircraft, or were running a workshop in Singapore worth about £11 million. The responsibility which they accepted was terriffic.
Therefore, although we thanked the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his predecessor the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, very much indeed for linking Service pensions to the retail price index, we did not give three cheers because, unfortunately, although that was a very great improvement, a second working career was necessary for nearly all those officers. I had a Lieutenant-Colonel who commanded a regiment, and I thought he was a military genius. He retired on £650 a year—admittedly, it was way back—and he kept two horses in the yard and a groom to clean them, as well as an inside servant. Only the richest people can do that nowadays. So I do not think we ought to clap hands now.
1156
My second point is that the difference between public servants or members of the Armed Forces and the private sector is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, pointed out, a matter of chance. In the private sector, you can go for a very high salary with a certain risk, and if you get to the end you will have a high consequential pension, whereas if you flog along in the Armed Forces you will not. One difference between members of the Armed Forces and civil servants is that it is virtually impossible to fire civil servants. They have to commit a criminal offence or do something disgraceful before the can be fired, whereas in the Navy, Army and Air Force there are redundancy schemes in operation today and quite efficient fellows are being fired or retired.
Another point which I do not think has been mentioned in this debate is that in the operative period last year wages rose 28 per cent., while our pensions rose 26.1 per cent., so that the Civil Service and the Armed Forces are still behind. My conclusion is that linking pensions to an economic index of some kind—preferably to the average wage, but, if necessary, to the retail price index as at present—is surely right. The House of Commons thought so in 1971, and they voted themselves index-linking of pensions. So that the right cure for our present difficulty, which we all recognise, is to slow down the rate of inflation.
7.56 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on having raised a subject which has been arousing interest and concern in the country as a whole, and on having introduced the debate in such a helpful way. I congratulate him, also, on his presentation of the facts, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, congratulated him on his research. My noble friend drew our attention to the problems and difficulties which can arise, especially for private manufacturing industry and smaller businesses upon whose efforts our economic future so much depends. He accepted the principle of comparability between the private and public sectors, and he put forward, constructively, considerations which should now be taken into account.

1157
In this debate we have been fortunate in having distinguished speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, a former head of the Civil Service, the noble Lord, Lord Garner, a former head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who led the Staff Side of the Civil Service Whitley Council during a very important period, accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, who also took part in this debate.
As noble Lords will recall from some other recent debates, I was myself a professional diplomatist and, besides serving abroad, worked for periods in London at the Foreign Office and was seconded to the Cabinet Office. But I do not have a financial interest in that respect to declare, because I resigned at my own wish when a member of the Embassy in Vienna, in response to a request from constituents in the North of Scotland to come home and stand for Parliament.
I should, however, declare a financial interest from an earlier role, in being eligible for an 80 per cent. war disablement pension, which is included in the categories affected by Government policy now being discussed. Your Lordships will be cheered by the felicitous effect of this, in that I usually make short speeches since having to stand for any length of time is uncomfortable, to put it at its mildest, and Members in another place soon discovered that I was very willing to give way to interventions after a few minutes.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has taken the opportunity in this debate —and we thank him for it—to point out that there were some extravagantly critical, and mostly misinformed, articles in the Press. I agree with that. But the House has acknowledged in this debate that there is genuine concern in the country, at a time of unparalleled inflation, that the Government have vast resources available with which to keep pay and pensions proof against inflation, while the private sector is exceedingly hard pressed to emulate this. There is also some feeling of resentment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, drew attention, at the difference which there appears to be between those who apparently have comfortable jobs, with full security—and he was describing local government and other areas, as well as the Civil Service—
1158
and those who work in factories and produce goods with which the country must earn its living.
I believe that this debate has helped to clear the air and to produce facts which will provide realistic comparisons. When comparing the pay and conditions of employees in the public and private sectors, let us also have the self-employed in the forefront of our minds. They have immense problems when faced with making provision for retirement in a time of very high inflation. Many of the self-employed play key parts in our economy, and the Government should bear them in mind.
May I first deal with pensions. Public service pensions were a cause for concern for some years until 1970. Many Members of both Houses of Parliament were worried and active at the time and will recall the widespread anxiety. I think particularly of my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside and the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, who were very much engaged on this subject in another place. With others, they were especially concerned about those who had retired 10 or 20 years earlier and the effect of inflation, which seemed fairly tame in those days compared with this year's, on pensions.
As has been generally accepted in this debate, that situation was rectified by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. I was glad to be a member of the Cabinet which agreed to the Bill that was introduced—as also was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who piloted the Bill through this House and who must take the credit for it here. In his most helpful speech to us this afternoon the noble Earl has described the reasons for that Act and its main contents. As he told us, it was widely applauded at the time and I can remember no opposition anywhere to it; but that was at a time when inflation was running at about 5 per cent. Inflation running at 5 per cent. was considered to be dangerously high and one hoped that it would be infrequent. It is now, as we know only too well, over 25 per cent., a percentage that would have seemed impossible in those days.
On 1st December, less than two weeks ago, an increase of 26.1 per cent. was granted to public service pensioners. This includes not only former civil servants,

1159
as has been described by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, but also teachers, local government officials and others. That increase was related to the retail price index and not to average earnings, although the one is directly related to the other. The passing of the 1971 Act, with general acclamation, brought public service pensions into line with what was then being done in some of the private sector. Except for a small element, pensions in the Civil Service are noncontributory and they are not funded. At the inflation rates of 1970, with investment possibilities and the dividend returns available then, private pension schemes could provide the kind of pension which the 1971 Act aimed to produce for public servants; but at the present rate of inflation, with the present curbs on dividends and price increases, the prospects for private schemes are very different.
Turning to the application of the £6 a week limit to pay increases which is part of the Government's policy in the tight against inflation, a fight in which we are all concerned to help them, the Government decided not to apply that limit to the pensions increase. According to the replies that have been given to Questions in Parliament—and it has been confirmed by the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, today —information can be put together that the average increase in public service pensions is about £3.50 a week, which is well below the £6 a week pay limit.
The question that faces us is whether pensions at the top of the range should have been touched in any way. I do not dissent from the Government's decision which was a very difficult one to make. However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, some public service pensioners who, because of their outstanding services, receive large pensions were so concerned about the position that they came forward voluntarily and suggested that they might be treated differently, their increases being either stopped or curbed. This question should be looked at when considering any future programmes which may be necessary in the fight against inflation. I applaud the spirit in which that proposal was made by the recipients of these pensions.
1160
Understandably there is anxiety because in today's conditions private industry and businesses find that it is almost impossible to match—I must use the expression if the noble Lord, Lord Snow, will excuse it —the "inflation proofing". As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said, some companies have been very successful in their schemes until now; but as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has pointed out, the problems of competing with the public sector are overwhelming with inflation running at its present rate. When one considers that the increase in the amount of money required to deal with this pension increase between last year and this year is about £180 million, covering about 1 million public service pensioners, one can see how difficult it must be for smaller firms to compete. It is virtually impossible for them to stay in that league unless inflation is greatly reduced.
Our enemy is inflation. It is the enemy against which the whole country should combine as if these were wartime conditions. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that this was one single year of inflation at an unprecedented rate. Of course I hope that he is right. He suggested that we should be in single figures of inflation in the near future. Again I hope that he is right, but I fear there could be a danger of complacency if people think that this just happens without effort. If inflation were to continue at 20 or even 15 per cent. a year, there would still be great problems for British industry and businesses in general.
After a recent meeting at Chequers the Government announced that they would give priority to those activities—no doubt industrial, financial and commercial—which produce the country's wealth: for example, those who manufacture the goods and provide the services which earn the country its living. I am sure that most of us agree with that priority. I hope that the Government recognise the serious situation created by very high inflation, and they should try to help British industry so far as comparative pay and pensions are concerned.
Turning to pay, as several speakers have reminded us, Civil Service pay has been looked at by the Pay Research Unit. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, told us that the Unit carries out its work fairly

1161
and meticulously within its directive, and this has been confirmed by others who have seen it at work from close quarters. I cannot see any serious difficulty over the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that it might be manned in future not only by the Civil Service but also by people outside, either independent experts or people from industry and business with whom the comparison is being made. This would help to demonstrate the impartiality of the Pay Research Unit, especially as the information with which it works is confidential; therefore that information does not become public.
I was interested when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, told us that this was at the request of the companies and businesses concerned who produce the information. I can understand that, but there would be no difficulty over the confidentiality of the information if some representatives of companies and businesses spent a period, like their Civil Service counterparts, with the Pay Research Unit. I should think that the Civil Service itself would see advantage in this, and I could not myself see any objection. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe suggested an inquiry and, as for three years my noble friend was the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, I am sure the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will carefully consider that suggestion. Certainly if inflation is not greatly reduced the Government may need urgent advice based on an investigation of all the facts.
I should like to make one point about perquisites because I think, as a result of the debate, the only one that has been mentioned is education where the Diplomatic Service is concerned. I recall that the present system arose from the Plowden Report. First one Government and then another carried out the recommendations contained in that Report in 1964 and 1965. One of the points was the concern in regard to the continuity of children's education. This point has been brought to public notice by a letter in The Times a few days ago. From Parliamentary replies—particularly one on 27th November in another place—we see that £2l¼ million was spent on boarding education for the Armed Services, covering all ranks, and the Diplomatic Service equivalent was £2 million. So I think it must be seen as well in the
1162
wider context of the Armed Forces. Some of this was repaid in tax.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke about the Armed Forces, although we are mainly debating the Civil Service, one cannot, as I have indicated, deal with that without also considering the situation of the Armed Forces. Where the education of children is concerned, among those who have to serve for most of their time abroad, as part of their conditions of service, there is a disincentive if there can be no continuity in children's education. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, confirmed this from his experience.
Perhaps I may give a typical example of present day service in the Diplomatic Service. It would be quite normal for someone with a family of school age first to be in the Congo, then in Brazil, then in Saigon, then in Amman, with perhaps, in between, one or two spells in London. It is exceedingly difficult to provide in those places continuity of education in English. Noble Lords may be interested to know that, at the time I was in the Diplomatic Service, some of us considered, and used, the Lycée system. I did not use it myself, but some of my colleagues did because they found that they could get access to a Lycée in or near many of the posts in which they served in those days. Then their children received the continuity in education, but of course all based in French. Of course, that was helpful. Now that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office covers so much of the world, I believe it is no longer possible even to do that. Therefore, there is a need for children to return to this country to boarding schools, and I do not see how that can be avoided if one is to encourage entry by competition (as it is) into the Diplomatic Service. It is then just a question of whether people object to this money going to private schools as opposed to other schools. I will leave this to the Government to think about; while there is no wide range of boarding places in the state system, then inevitably this money must go to private independent schools.
I agree with several noble Lords who expressed the view that we are lucky in having such a good Civil Service. I will go further and say that we have the best Civil Service in the world. But we

1163
should keep its size in proportion to its tasks. In return for a service having good pay and good conditions, that service should be kept within reasonable size. We should not allow it to grow unchecked and we should not place—I think all Parliamentarians must take some responsibility for what has happened in the past —more and more tasks upon our Civil Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Helsby, said that some unpopularity had been incurred by the Civil Service because they had to interfere more in people's lives. I agree that that is one of the things that has happened. I deplore the effect that some recent legislation has had, particularly the Community Land Act which is expected to produce another 15,000 or so unproductive Civil Servants who can make no contribution to our country's industrial efforts. I am sure they will carry out their tasks well and ably, but that is the kind of thing which I believe we as a country can ill afford. I hope the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who has welcomed the opportunity in this debate today to discuss these matters, will consider carefully what has been said and will agree that it has been a responsible and well-informed debate.
8.16 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I immediately respond to the noble Lord, Lord Champbell of Croy, by saying that I am very well satisfied with the debate that we have had today and I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who spoke at the beginning of seeking to elucidate some of the obscure matters concerning the Civil Service, its pay and its pensions, will feel, as I do, that this is a debate that is not only opportune but perhaps too long delayed. Perhaps if we had held this debate some two months ago much of the ill-advised criticism that has appeared in the media would have been avoided. I agree so much with my noble friend from North of the Border that the Service is of the finest, that it has felt bruised, and it was as though there had been an orchestrated campaign against the Service. Why, one can only surmise. Maybe it is only part of the problems with which we now live—the question of recession, the question of doubt as to the position of our body poli-
1164
tic—but without the Civil Service this country could not be administered and our democratic services could not be provided.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that civil servants do get sacked for inefficiency. I understand that during 1974 some 600 were sacked for that reason and others were "removed"(shall we put it?) because their efficiency did not match up to the position they then occupied. So civil servants, like soldiers, are occasionally dismissed owing to their inefficiency.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, my chief complaint was about redundancy, and perfectly good fellows in the Navy, Army and Air Force being sacked irrespective of being perfectly efficient.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is quite another matter and it may be something which we can discuss on another occasion.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised under the heading of "Perquisites" the question of the grants provided to overseas diplomats for the education of their children. It is quite right—this was seen some time ago, and I personally believe it to be right—that when our staff are sent overseas, sometimes to hard stations, there should be continuity of education which, generally, can be provided only at a boarding school in this country, particularly if a parent wishes to have his child educated here; and something has to be done about it. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred to it as being about £10,000 tax free. I gather it is possible to get £10,000 tax free if you have eight-plus boys or girls in your family. I am not aware of very many within the overseas service who have such a large family, all being educated at the same time. At the present moment, the current maximum rate of allowance is of the order of £1,200 per annum and that, if I may say so, is a rate that is struck from what is roughly the middle figure required at a boarding school.
With regard to manpower, I accept the concern about the ever-increasing numbers—and I have particularly in mind at this moment Central Government, although it is perhaps of greater concern in terms of local government. Certainly

1165
legislation creates an increase. The legislative programme of last Session required an additional staff of some 7,500 civil servants. Four thousand five hundred was the figure which resulted from the Child Benefit Act, which was supported from all sides of the House. This illustrates the fact that when we are going forward into this class of legislation the consequence to manpower is quite considerable. Personally, I take the view that we should seek restraint now within the public service.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asked me a number of questions about whether various matters were taken into account. I think that in my opening speech I dealt with these matters although I do not know whether I made entirely clear that the question of job security is a factor. How one arrives at that factor, I do not know, but I am advised that there is a factor within the figure taking into account security of employment.
I was particularly interested in listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Geddes of Epsom, on the subject of their early days in Civil Service negotiations, the way in which Priestley came into being and how it developed. In my short experience, there is still tough negotiation. Those who may think that because the Pay Research Unit produces a set of figures, those figures are automatically accepted by management, or for that matter by the unions, have only to witness the tough negotiations that go on between the Staff Side and the management side. I refer to them particularly because it seems to me that the point that emerged from the debate as being of concern was not a matter of questioning the integrity of the system or the integrity of those who sought to administer the system, but whether it was right, whether it was possible, in the national interest, that greater information should be made available.
So far as nay is concerned, under the Pay Research Unit system, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is quite right. The difficulty about too much disclosure at the moment arises because of the understanding about confidentiality that the Service has with the very many private employers. Quite clearly, I cannot say anything until there is carried out a series
1166
of discussions with those in the private sector who provide a great deal of sensitive information—sensitive not only in their relationships with those in the particular industry or trade, but maybe also within the company itself. Therefore, we must recognise that this is an area where we need to go with caution. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is quite right.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, with the greatest respect, while I take the point that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is making, I find the answer about confidentiality just a little unconvincing. The Pay Research Unit goes to a number of different organisations; obviously it must, or it would be a quite improper study. We know that statistically the Unit does an extremely good job. Therefore, I do not see that there is any more difficulty in making public their findings, based on a large sample, and simply saying, "This is a result of the sample". I do not see any more difficulty in revealing that, than in revealing the survey findings of a large number of studies involving confidential inquiries in companies and other organisations for similar purposes.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will not think me discourteous if I suggest to her that she reads my opening speech, when I indicated the very large number of companies which are consulted, and in which inquiries of quite a deep nature are made. My point is that all those inquiries are made on the basis of confidentiality between the Government and the industry. Before you break confidentiality, if you wish confidentiality to continue, not only in this area but in many others, you do not move too arbitrarily. You do not make an announcement to do it immediately; you do it as a consequence of consultation. That is one thing I am prepared to consider, because so far as the Civil Service Department is concerned, and my understanding with those within the trade unions, there would be no difficulty from their point of view, or ours, about much greater disclosure in this field. But it is a question of dealing with those who are, shall we say, in partnership in the acquisition of information.
My Lords, with regard to pensions, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, thought there

1167
may be a case for an inquiry into the way in which the 1971 Act is operating in the particular economic climate of today. I would hope that the deep inflation of this year will be dramatically reduced next year, and, therefore, the strains which are clear today will be less than what they are. Therefore, I am a little hesitant about suggesting that we should inquire into this matter. I said at the beginning of the debate that we were looking at the matter internally. Of course, we shall be consulting with the Staff Side, but we are looking at the possible consequences if the pensions are tied to prices and if prices still go up much higher than the rate of pay. I would hesitate to change the system of pensions because of a problem of a 12-or 18-month period. I think we have a right and duty to look into the matter.
A number of noble Lords asked me what we should do about those civil servants who have retired on high pensions. There has been some questioning as to whether the Government should have selected those in this group for some curb on their pensions, as was done in the realm of salaries. Rightly or wrongly, the Government felt that the pensions had been earned, and that as a consequence off air negotiations during 1975 it would be wrong arbitrarily to reduce or hold back any of the pensions due to civil servants or, for that matter, any within private or other parts of the public sector. It was put to me that perhaps some pensioners might wish to forgo on a voluntary basis what is due to them, and I was asked my view on that. I think this is a matter for each individual to decide.
I see these pensions as a matter of right, and it is not for me, nor I believe for the Government, to say how an individual should decide a matter of that sort. My position would be a great deal easier if there were some volunteers from the private sector. I have observed the pensions which some of the leading men of industry receive, and some of the" perks" that they will take for the rest of their natural lives because of a contract that they entered into with the companies of which they were chairmen. If there were a lead from there it might be easier for me to say something in regard to public servants. But this is a matter for each individual to decide.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? That is not my point, as I think he knows. The ex-public servants to whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, and I were referring have actually made representations to the Civil Service Department asking for this to be seriously considered. They do not think that one individual makes the slightest difference, but if this were done over a range, by agreement, it might have some effect. The important thing is that this should be known to be done. You cannot expect to make the Civil Service look slightly more amiable if all this is being done behind closed doors.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think one needs to keep this matter in perspective. Of the quarter of a million or so Civil Service pensioners only 70 receive £8,500 or above. If I may say so, what concerns me about the point that my noble friend is putting is that it will look as though the Service has such large numbers in this category as to be of any real significance. I know approaches have been made. This is a matter which clearly the Service as a whole must look at. My own feeling is that pensions are as of right until such time as the Government, who are the employer, and who are the guardian of the public purse, might say that in the national interest something has got to be done and some change made. But this is a matter, I should have thought, on which we should move with great hesitancy, and not because of what I hope is a short-term problem of inflation. In the way of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I am not so doubtful of the ability of this country to deal with our present rate of inflation. There are already gratifying signs of an improvement.
My Lords, I have spoken a great deal longer than I intended. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for initiating this debate. I only hope that the media, through the written word in the newspapers, who have been extremely vocal, the television and the radio, will pay a little more attention than they usually do to your Lordships' debates, and at least see that this House expresses its confidence in the integrity of the Civil Service; that it reaffirms the view of successive Governments, that we

1169
should be a good employer, no better or worse; that we should be fair, so far as it is possible, both to our servants and to the people of the country.
8.35 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in what has been a very good debate, of very high calibre and with special knowledge adding to our enjoyment and, I think, our satisfaction. I thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for what he has said. I still think there are one or two areas in the formula which are ill-defined, but perhaps he could write me about them. Concerning security, it is felt in private industry that there is much greater security within the Civil Service, and if this is a factor which is allowed for perhaps we should know what percentage. I feel that perhaps the present arrangements can continue for one more year; but if the hope of a substantial fall in inflation does not come about—and, after all, it was only a year ago when Mr. Healey was talking about 8.4 when it was 26.1:I hope this time we are getting back to single figures, but there are big problems to solve—I forecast that what I think Lord Pannell called "deep-seated resentment" and Lord Jellicoe called "schism" between public and private sectors will only widen and get deeper. Something must he done about this because we can ill afford to have more divisions within our nation. I wonder whether another £180 million this time next year can possible be borne by wealth-creating industry if we are to remain competitive and keep enough money to invest in the future.
On my last point, about the Pay Research Unit, I am sure he will not have any difficulty in allowing these figures to be published. We all do it through our trade associations, our little NEDCs, the Ministry of Industry and many other places. I am sure they are not secret; they can be put together globally, preserving confidentiality. The noble Lord did not quite make the point, but I will leave it with him. I should very much like to see the Pay Research Unit broadened to make use of other talents, which equally could serve for short periods as the civil servants do now. I thank your Lordships for your participa-
1170
tion and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: SECOND REPORT
8.38 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON Lord HILL of LUTON rose to move, That this House takes note of the Second Report of the European Communities Committee of this Session on the Action Programme in favour of Migrant Workers and their Families (R/39/75) (Soc. 2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, on behalf of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The subject of the Report is a Consultative Document emerging from proposals embodying a draft action programme in favour, to use its own words, "of migrant workers and their families". It is a vague document. It is expressed for the most part in general and not explicit terms, and we have to consider the general objectives that are set out in the document as well as some early proposals.
My Lords, I would make four preliminary points. The authors of this document, it is perfectly clear, have had in mind the particular migrant problem on the mainland of Europe rather than the one which concerns this country. There, in general, migrants tend to spend a time in the host country and then return to their own countries. Thirdly—and this is of great importance in examining this document—the word "migrant" used in this document covers those people whom we describe as immigrants in this country. That is borne out by the figures—figures of the migrant population in this country or, to be more accurate, in this country when the Census of 1971 was taken.
We have about 1.7 million migrant workers in this country— "migrants" within the definition which I gave. Of that 1.7 million migrant workers—I make abundantly clear that it does not include dependants, it is migrant workers, as are all these figures—about 650,000 come to this country from Member-countries of the Community; rather more than 1 million come from non-Member countries. When one breaks down that rather more than 1 million, one finds that nearly

1171
700,000 have come from the Commonwealth, the new as well as the old Commonwealth. In fact, just over 600,000 come from the new Commonwealth; for example, the West Indies, India and Pakistan. These were the figures for workers in the 1971 Census. All these people are covered by these proposals.
The main proposals include, first, a new definition of "dependant". In this country, we offer today unrestricted entry to what may be called vertical dependants of the migrant worker—sons, daughters, grandparents, and the like. In this document and these proposals it is suggested that lateral dependants—cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces—be brought within the definition of dependants. The significance of that will be immediately seen.
Secondly, there are proposals affecting non-contributory benefits; family allowances, attendance allowance, supplementary benefits, are examples of the noncontributory benefits which are concerned. First, there are family allowances. It is a fact—I have no doubt your Lordships were aware of this, but certainly I was not—that in the case of a migrant coming here from an EEC country but leaving his family at home, family allowances are paid to that migrant in respect of children who have never come to this country, who are still in the home country. That stems from the Treaty to which we have acceded. Although it is not specifically proposed, there is a broad hint, as we read the document, that the objective is to enlarge this export of family allowances and pay them in respect of the children of all migrants, including those coming from the new Commonwealth. All I will say is that the financial results of that can be imagined, if not calculated. So far as other non-contributory benefits are concerned— here the proposal is very vague—if the proposals meant that such benefits as attendance allowance, and of course supplemental benefits, were exported in the same way, substantial problems would arise.
Secondly, there are contributory benefits; unemployment benefit is the main example of this. Again, the present position is one in which, in my ignorance. I did not realise that where a migrant EEC worker comes to this country to work, falls
1172
out of work, registers as unemployed and then, not finding a job, goes home, we pay—presumably we post to him back at home—unemployment benefit for up to a period of three months, If, on the other hand, he did not register—he fell out of work and just went home—then as he gets into work again in his home country and, as it were, scores up for unemployment benefit, there is then a system by which he can aggregate the entitlement that he has gained here to his unemployment benefit at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who knows so much more about it than I do, and perhaps more than most of us do, will later be dealing more fully with this point.
There are some vague proposals under another heading, and I simply mention them. There is a proposal for dealing with linguistic barriers. It could mean that we need to establish an interpretation service of public officers, public establishments, in order to enable the migrant to be understood. If that really meant the provision of interpreters in that way, it would mean some problems; but there is one other problem of crucial importance. There is a proposal—your Lordships will be hearing about it later, for it has been developed in greater detail in another document yet to be examined—that the host country should not only provide crash courses for teaching English but, as a matter of educational policy, should promote the mother tongue of the migrant and the culture of his country of origin, including the appointment of foreign teachers for the purpose.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Does this apply to Welsh people coming to work in England?
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, they have not been covered by our definition of migrants. The Irish, Yes, the Welsh, No.
Baroness WHITE: Another injustice to Wales!
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, our policy here—this is the most significant point—has been to do our utmost to assimilate our migrants, to integrate them with the people and life of this country; something which we persistently and sometimes painfully sought to

1173
accomplish. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potter hill, with his unrivalled experience, will be developing this point in a moment.
Despite the vagueness of this document and its imprecision, there really are some important issues—or potential issues in some cases—raised by it. Incidentally, we have just seen—I imagine the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply has also seen it—a revised version of the Paper that is to go before the Council of Ministers next week. It is slimmer than the original one, but that is because many of the issues have been temporarily set aside to come back in the form of more detailed and separate Directives but the long term objective of these proposals is unchanged. The role of the Select Committee is to bring to your Lordships proposals of importance emerging from Brussels which perhaps, without their scrutiny and that of another place, might escape public attention. This is the purpose of the Select Committee, and this is an important illustration of what such scrutiny can reveal. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Second Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on the Action Programme in favour of Migrant Workers and their Families (R/39/75) (Soc. 2).—(Lord Hill of Luton.)
8.50 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, rightly points out that there is no definition of "migrant worker" either in the document which the Select Committee examined or in the Select Committee's observations on it. However, he has provided us with a useful working definition which, to paraphrase, is a person who was born overseas and comes here legitimately to work with the approval of the Home Office. That is certainly the definition to which the Social Affairs Directorate of the EEC has been working in its dealings with the United Kingdom, and that is a useful starting point for our discussion.
I wish, first, to draw attention to the national origin of the people who are entering this country for the purpose of taking up work because at the moment they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, implied at one stage in his remarks,
1174
principally of New Commonwealth origin. I am taking my figures from the published Home Office statistics for the year 1974. During that year, from the New Commonwealth, 1,373 persons were admitted with work permits and from Spain in the same period the number was 1,425. Au pair girls, who I think are included in the definition of migrant workers, numbered 28 from the whole of the Commonwealth and 1,624 from Switzerland.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I should like to get this abundantly clear, my Lords. The figures I gave were based on the table on page 14 of the paper, Annexe 1, which gives the numbers of people actually here from those various countries in 1971 in terms of the Census.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I appreciate that the figures given in the table to which the noble Lord refers relate to those who were present in this country at the time of the 1971 Census. I am amplifying the picture a little by giving my analysis of the figures published by the Home Office relating to those who came here during 1974 so that we are not looking at a static picture of what was the position in 1971. Let us examine what is actually happening now and who the migrant workers are who are entering the United Kingdom, because that is what I am trying to illustrate. From the New Commonwealth during that year, the number of persons accepted for settlement on the removal of the time limit which had been imposed when they first entered this country was 17,400 and the equivalent number from non-EEC countries, excluding Pakistan, was 19,400. The number given leave for working holidays, as they are called, from Canada, Australia and New Zealand was 16,400 and from the rest of the Commonwealth, 3,592.
I quote these figures because it is important that we understand in discussing this question that our policy on the admission of migrants—whether they be workers or people coming here for any other purpose—is blatantly racist; we do not mind how many Swiss or Spanish we admit, or our kith and kin from the Old Commonwealth, but we arc not going to let in any black workers if we can possibly help it.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that

1175
we have taken a very considerable number, under the quota we have agreed with Kenya and the like, who come in from Kenya with United Kingdom passports and do not have to get work permits? In my view the noble Lord's figures do not accurately give the number of people coming from another country and who will obviously seek employment when they get here.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I hope the other members of the Select Committee have studied the subject a little more thoroughly than the noble Baroness apparently has; that is, if she thinks that our United Kingdom citizens who were formerly resident in East Africa can come here without permission. They need to obtain a quota voucher and the issue of quota vouchers is severely limited by the Home Office, as she can understand from the figures I have given.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH:My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can dismiss the fact that these are people coming in for employment. I do not say that they are not quoted, but the figure is something like 3,000 in the last year from Kenya and it is completely misleading to say that we are not taking Commonwealth citizens in anything like the numbers that we are taking European ones, because if one leaves those quota figures out—from Pakistan, Kenya and other African and other countries—one is giving a completely false picture of new arrivals seeking work.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not want to repeat all the figures I have given. If the noble Baroness has a quarrel over them, perhaps she will take it up with the Home Office, which published them, rather than waste the time of the House.
Baroness ELLES:My Lords, would the noble Lord not give figures only from certain tables and not from others? We all have the document, as the noble Lord will be aware, and Table lA refers to the "Citizenship and purpose of journey" of passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom. Of Commonwealth citizens, in 1974 there were 26,000 United Kingdom passport holders, of whom 10,000 were admitted for settlement on arrival. The noble Lord will probably know where the United Kingdom passport
1176
holders came from; from Kenya there were 14,000. It would be very much better if the noble Lord did not make the kind of racist point he has been making.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, that was, if I may say so, a very stupid intervention. If the noble Baroness wants to make her own analysis of the figures, she will have an opportunity to do so later. In the meanwhile, I hope I shall be allowed to make my own speech in my own way. I say that we have a racist immigration policy in this country, and there are many people who agree with me and who think the figures I have quoted go a long way to substantiating that assertion.
The Report deals with the needs of migrant workers from the point of view of employment, housing, social security benefits, vocational training and education; but nowhere does it refer to the difficulties which confront the migrant on first entering this country in obtaining access to these services; that is, immediately upon entry or after arrival. I draw the attention of the House to the Paludan Report on the Problems of Refugees in Exile in Europe, which refers to the need for reception and counselling services. That need is certainly not confined to those who are explicitly within the definition of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of a refugee.
As the Home Office will be aware—probably the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who is to reply, has knowledge of this also—a working group has been set up under the auspices of the Standing Conference for British Organisations for Aid to Refugees which is recommending that a reception centre should be established to provide accommodation for those with nowhere else to go when they arrive in this country; to provide advisory services and information for new entrants and to advise the Government on how to deal with migrants who may arrive in this country as a result of some political upheaval overseas, as has happened in the case of, for example, Chile and Cyprus. In my view, a proposal of this kind, extending to all migrant workers and their dependants arriving in this country, would be an essential pre-condition of any co-ordinated policy of those migrant workers, and I suggest that it should be an additional function of the

1177
new Community Relations Executive which is to be set up following the Government's White Paper on Racial Discrimination.
That proposal would obviously cost money, but I submit that it would pay for itself in acclimatising workers who are arriving here more quickly than would otherwise be possible and would be the kind of project which, I have good reason to believe, the EEC Social Fund would like to support. In this connection, I wish to raise the issue of the admission of dependants, and in particular I want to refer to some aspects of the Committee's reference to this matter. They say that the proposal to offer unrestricted entry to migrant workers' dependants would require considerable lateral extension of the United Kingdom practice which at present admitted only the migrant's spouse, children and dependent relatives in vertical line. This is not an accurate picture of what happens at the moment because dependants do not have unrestricted entry. They have to go through the procedure of applying for an entry certificate and every conceivable obstacle is erected to make the process as lengthy as possible.
I had a letter this morning from the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the dependants of a resident in this country who had applied to join him here. The Under-Secretary of State tells me that it Ls still taking about 16 months for dependants to get even as far as being interviewed by the entry certificate officer in the High Commission. Those who are familiar with these cases will recognise that the interview may be the first stage in a very lengthy process of inquiries which then has to be made to establish the bona fides of the dependant, inquiries which may not be confined entirely to the country of origin but may refer to the situation of the sponsor in this country.
In relation to the children in particular, I should like to draw attention to the comment made by Mr. Larry Grant and Mr. John Constable in the New Law Journal of 18th September, who say:
"One of the most distressing aspects of the system of immigration control is that the rules have been framed strictly to limit the number of children who are able to join their parents settled here."
1178
It can take as long as three years from the date of the first application by a dependant to join his father or mother in this country, and I sincerely hope that the Community will ultimately go beyond the recommendation that a formal granting of a right of entry should be made to a migrant's dependants and will insist that the administrative procedures should be such as to make that right effective without undue delay.
On the subject of education I suppose that it is assumed by most people that the children of migrant workers will automatically be admitted to schools, but what happens in Britain is that, if the parents are admitted for six months or less, the local education authority is under no obligation to admit them; if the parents have been admitted for between six and 12 months, the right of admission is discretionary; and only if the admission is for more than 12 months is there a mandatory requirement on the local education authority to admit those children to school. It may be said that most of the parents admitted for six months will leave at the end of that period anyway, but I can quote many cases where a temporary permission is first granted for three or six months and then renewed for the same period several times in a row. It would be quite possible for the children to be here for a year or more without obtaining any education, when it should be obvious from the start that the parents will have the conditions removed and that the children will then be considerably behind with their education.
With regard to higher education, the Select Committee said:
"The proposal for equal treatment of the children of migrant workers and the indigenous population in the award of study grants was not disputed."
However, the parents must have been resident in this country for three years before the children qualify for a grant. Incidentally, the Committee points out that that will apply to citizens of the United Kingdom just as much as it does to foreigners. The vice-chancellors of the universities have admitted that this is e. discriminatory provision and, though it is not expressed as such, it in fact discriminates against ethnic minorities since most United Kingdom citizens with under three years' residence will be people of

1179
Asian origin who were formerly living in East Africa. I do not know why the concession which was made to the children of refugees from Uganda could not have been extended to the children of other refugees from Kenya, Tanzania and other parts of Africa. This is what the White Paper on Racial Discrimination describes as a "pattern" of discrimination which could ultimately be investigated by the proposed Race Relations Executive when it comes into being. However, since we can already see that it may be open to criticism by that body, why should we not take steps to abolish the rule now?
On housing, the Select Committee says that the recommendations are not applicable to the United Kingdom. It asserts that housing policy treats migrants and United Kingdom nationals on the same basis. That is literally untrue in the case of the London Borough of Ealing, where applicants who are not British subjects are specifically excluded from admission to the housing list, and in practice it is untrue everywhere else. Housing policy is a classical example of the way in which apparently fair arrangements discriminate against migrants because,
"the effect of our housing policy is that minority groups stand in greater need of council housing than the rest of the population but are less likely to obtain it."
That quotation is from the PEP Report, Racial Minorities and Council Housing. We find that a higher proportion of people from the West Indies and people of Asian origin live in multiple occupation than do the indigenous people. The The Runnymede Report on Race and Council Housing in London shows that people from ethnic minorities, when they are offered council accommodation, are likely to be housed on the older estates and in the most unattractive areas.
So I wonder why this Select Committee Report has been produced at all when it makes no reference to these patterns of discrimination which exist against the migrant worker and his family. I am afraid I must say that it is a thoroughly slipshod, flimsy and incompetent piece of work. The Select Committee took no evidence from organisations which might have had something to say on the question of the problems faced by migrants—the Community Relations Commission,
1180
the Race Relations Board, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Runnymede Trust or the NACRC, to name a few obvious examples—let alone from any migrant workers themselves.
9.8 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I wish to deal only with the proposals in this document which relate to the education of the children of migrant workers coming here. The proposals are six in number. The first of these places a requirement on:
"…reception and accelerated training classes to assist the migrant children to settle into the new linguistic and educational environment."
This seems to me inevitably to present a problem—hut no major unacceptable problem—to the education services in this country. As your Lordships know, substantial numbers of children of immigrants to this country have been accommodated in the schools and special provision is made for them both in relation to learning the language and in settlement into the new educational setting which they have entered.
The second proposal is,
"…the exchange of information and instructional aids, as well as research and pilot schemes in teaching methods."
Here again there is a complete structure of interchange of information and instructional aids, and I do not see any problem in the acceptance of that provision. Next is,
"the development of assistance activities outside school hours by social workers."
I cannot speak for the social services, but I should imagine that they co-operate with the educational services—indeed I have every reason to believe that they do—in helping in the out-of-school activities of immigrant children and immigrants in the community.
The next proposal is,
"the equal treatment for migrant children in the award of study grants and similar assistance",
a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. I do not think that the noble Lord is right when he says that the parents have to be in residence for three years. It is the student who has to be in residence for three years if he is to be considered for an award. I accept that this is a differentiation as compared with the normal resident in

1181
this country, but I think the reasonableness of it is rather obvious. There could be a vast number of students arriving for no other purpose than to attend our universities or polytechnics. Is it suggested that if they so arrive we necessarily have to give them awards to go to our universities? They are required to be three years in ordinary residence before these conditions apply, though during that three year period it is open to authorities to make awards if they think that the circumstances justify it, more particularly where the admission of them to courses would not necessarily involve major additional expenditure.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? If they were the dependants of a person who had been admitted for work, then they would not be admitted as dependants if they were over 16. They would then have to apply to be admitted as students, and it would be a matter for discretion whether an entry certificate would be granted to them for that purpose.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, that is perfectly true, if they were of that age at the time of entry of the parents. The vast majority of cases we are dealing with here bring their younger dependant children who have been in ordinary residence more than three years by the time they reach the stage of going into higher education. Therefore no problem arises in these cases. But I accept that there is a differential when compared with our own people. There is a further differential in the fact that for foreign students generally the fee charged for tuition is higher than that charged to our own people. This is also a difference which exists, and these matters would have to be examined in the light of this document.
I am much more concerned with the other provision. I had better read it out as it is stated:
"…the provision of education in school-time so as to preserve the original culture and mother tongue."
That would be a major change of policy for the educational services in this country. The vast majority of immigrants coming into this country are not transient. They do not come for a year and then go back home again. They come and settle
1182
here. Therefore we have devoted ourselves within school hours to the first objective of teaching them the English language and helping them to integrate into the community of which they have become a part.
In so far as anything is to be done in preserving the mother tongue or the original culture, we have taken the view that this is the responsibility of the parents or of those concerned with that particular community. A good deal of activity has in fact taken place in the case of Italian workers, but this has been done out of school hours. Local education authorities have co-operated by providing accommodation or otherwise helping, but for this to become a duty on local education authorities, as it would, we would find neither practicable nor educationally desirable.
Let us consider the problem for a moment, my Lords. If you are to teach the mother tongue and the native culture during school hours, you will reduce the time available to teach the English language and to incorporate the child into this country. This is what must happen. I can think of areas in which they would have to teach not one language but half a dozen within a limited group, because this is the reality. Wolver Hampton would be an example. I believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, said, there is a genuine difference here between the situation on the mainland of Europe and that in this country. I believe there are countries in Europe where substantial numbers of migrant workers come from a particular country (Germany, I think, would be an example of where this obtains) and are probably there for only a limited period—a year or two years-after which they will return to their own country, the country of origin.
In these cases, clearly, it is a major obligation to enable them to return at the end of two years and, therefore, to maintain the mother tongue and the mother culture, knowing that this is what is going to happen. Of course, if it is only a large group from one country this becomes a practical possibility; but this is not the situation in this country. The great majority of the children of immigrants in this country do not return; they stay. They are here to stay, and our problem is to integrate them into the community of which they are a part in

1183
this country. That provision, therefore, I think, would be neither educationally desirable nor, frankly, practicable in many areas.
This whole problem is one, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has said, which has been embodied in a subsequent document, and the Department of Education and Science have circulated that document to all the relevant educational interests in this country for their observations. When these have been obtained, no doubt the Department itself will express an official view. What I am expressing now, therefore, is no more than my personal reaction to the proposals which are before your Lordships' House.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, at this time of night the kindest thing I can do to your Lordships' House is to be extremely brief. Before making the very few comments that I wish to make, I should like to say in the friendliest possible way to my noble friend that I think perhaps he has slightly mistaken the purpose of this Report. In reporting these proposals of the EEC to your Lordships' House, we are not, of course, discussing the full implications of what might be done in this country on all the subjects raised by the documents which have come from the EEC. Our purpose is the very much narrower one of looking at what the EEC proposals are and asking, "How do these impinge on what we are doing or might be doing in the matters raised by the documents?" There are a great number of matters—of course there are—arising on the subjects that are touched upon here which we should deal with in the framework of our own law and which we should be entirely entitled to deal with in the framework of our own law. But here we are merely doing a much narrower thing; that is, seeing what is being proposed and then seeing, in those particulars but only in those particulars so far as this Report is concerned, how we ought to be looking at what we are doing.
I would say to my noble friend in passing that as I personally have in a class at the moment two Iranians and two Americans out of a group of eleven, I should be very sorry indeed if I felt
1184
that we had to provide grants to those two Iranians and two Americans.
Lord AVEBURY: Who says that we should?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we are discriminating against them on the grounds that they have no residence here. You have to have discrimination of this kind; otherwise, I would suggest, you would be landed with paying grants to Iranians and Americans. However, that is beside the point and is, as you might say, a family quarrel.
The purpose of the EEC draft which has come to us is a very general one. It is, I think, something we should be glad to have. It is vague because it does not come to us at present in the form of specific suggestions, directives or regulations; it comes as a first draft, as it were, of what we might be getting later on. I think that your Lordships should be glad that we are getting this kind of document, vague though it is, because it gives us a chance to think well in advance about what we ought to be doing. The difficulty up to now has been that so often we have had documents from Brussels, where the suggestions are pretty well cut and dried before they reach the review committees and certainly before they reach your Lordships' House, and there has been little time for proper consideration of what we ought to be doing in this country and what our representatives in Brussels should be saying in order to have the proper impact on the documents which finally come from Brussels.
The vagueness of this document, although it makes for a less satisfactory debate than we should have had had it been more specific, is good because it is an advance notice of the kind of matters to which we must give very much more consideration. As I see it, we are thinking here—and in these days of unemployment it is difficult to think in these terms —of the times to come, foreshadowed in the Treaty of Rome, when there will be such a thing as the free movement of labour. We talked about the free movement of labour before the Treaty of Rome was signed and we were moving into Europe. With rising unemployment in all our countries, this now becomes a rather different issue from when it was first considered. It is to be hoped that these days will return.

1185
If the free movement of labour is to be the benefit that we all hope, it has to be satisfactory both to the host country and to the people who wish to move about from one country to another. I want to draw attention particularly to two areas discussed in this Report which are of great importance both to the host country and to the migrant workers. One is the area of social security. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, threatened your Lordships with a discourse from me on the details of social security. I am quite sure that you are not going to get that; but there are two sides to it. The host country must have a clear idea of what commitments there are to the migrant workers coming in and moving out again, particularly in the case of migrants within the EEC; and the migrant workers must be assured of the benefits both that they have acquired in their own country and the additional benefits they acquire when they move into the host country, and what is to happen if they move back. There must be certainty about these matters; the certainty that rights are assured and that social security will be what the migrant expects and thinks that it is going to be. This is of the essence of making the free movement of labour a really satisfactory working proposition.
My Lords, there are one or two things which arise in connection with the social security provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, referred to doubts as to the wisdom of exporting non-contributory benefits. Certainly, before we were committed to anything of this kind it would have to be gone into very fully. I would not myself say (and I do not think that the Committee would say) that ultimately when the matters are fully explored it would necessarily be wrong to enter into an agreement about noncontributory benefits; but we should need to know more about what is involved and what the cost would be.
Commitment on family allowances we have already. There is only one detailed but important part of the family allowance issue. At the moment the commitment to pay family allowance is family allowance on the basis of the host country and not on the basis of the country from which the migrant worker has come. But there is one country which wishes the reverse practice to be adopted. It will
1186
not surprise your Lordships that that country is France. It would suit France extremely well with their much more generous provision (shall we say?) for families if the provision were to be made in terms of the country of origin rather than the host country. We think this suggestion from France should be watched carefully. It would be an open-ended commitment if we were going to have to export benefits on the basis of the level of benefit of the country from which the migrant worker came rather than vice versa. The other countries of the EEC adopt the same policy we are recommending. But France—not for the first nor I suspect the last time, and I speak as a strong Francophile Member of this House—would like it the other way. This is something about which we should be forewarned.
Regarding contributory benefits, it is a question of the responsibility which the host country should adopt towards migrant workers in the detail of the administration of social provisions. For the individual worker the detail of administration can make a great deal of difference. This is a small point which illustrates the detail that has to be gone into if there is going to be real security for the migrant worker and, at the same time, a satisfactory arrangement for the host country. This is the situation: If a migrant worker who, having registered, paid unemployment insurance and acquired unemployment benefits in this country, becomes out of work if he is here for four weeks then, when he returns to the country from which he has come, because he has registered here, he carries with him a right to unemployment pay for a period of three months from this country. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, pointed this out. People, alas, arc unwise from time to time, and if he is unwise enough not to register but drifts back home—this would not be an unlikely happening in a number of cases —he will have no benefit rights in any country. This illustrates the care which needs to be taken in the briefing and supervision of migrant workers if social security rights are not to break down. From that flows consideration of the kind of service, advice and information which we need to think about if the number of migrant workers within the EEC is going to increase. We are not familiar with those workers in this country,

1187
although the numbers coming in from non-Commonwealth countries are larger than a great number of us realise. These are migrants who intend to go back to their own country. This continuity and social security benefit is a very important matter indeed.
The other issue to which I shall draw attention is to do with vocational training and language training. The standard of vocational training and the approach toit—I do not mean the actual standard of instruction, but availability of vocational training—is more widespread in the EEC than it is in this country, though we are improving our provision here. The proposal from the EEC suggests that migrant workers should have rights to acquire vocational training in the host country. We pointed out in our Report that at present people in this country do not have rights to vocational training. We shall be under considerable pressure from the EEC to extend and enlarge our appreciation of vocational training rights.
There will be pressure on us, I suspect—and personally I welcome it—from Brussels to have a more extensive provision for vocational training, and people will be given rights to vocational training in a way that we have not given to our own citizens up to now. Until we give it to our own citizens, it would be unrealistic to imagine we are going to give it to migrant workers. That is an area we need to look at. All the evidence I have shows that pressure is likely to come from the EEC to extend what we are doing. This will come both in the form of general standards and in making provision for migrants.
One final word about language training, which is a very practical and down to earth matter. Vocational training, social security benefits and access to jobs —all these are of minor value if the migrant worker is seriously handicapped by language difficulties. The pressure is upon us now from the European Community, apart from a national programme for such training. May I say that I consider we should give more thought to this. We have been slow in providing imaginative language training for the immigrants who are already with us.
I should like to draw attention to one particularly successful experiment which
1188
is being carried out by the National Centre for Industrial Language Training. The essence of it is that language training is taken right into the place of work. This links language with the immediate needs of the workers, because there is a better chance of their learning a language when it is linked to the work they are doing and is undertaken in the work setting than if the language training is given in an educational establishment which is apart from the place of work. Since these EEC proposals ask us to stress the importance of language training and to develop it, I would urge upon your Lordships' House that more attention should be given to this training and that we should see it gets the required financial support.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss a very important document which may involve vast financial implications and millions of people in the Community coming within the category of migrant workers. It is the kind of subject, unfortunately, which attracts far fewer numbers of your Lordships than does one which concerns the animal species. I always think this is a cause for regret, because the way in which the Government take decisions on this draft action programme will indeed affect millions of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, tried to some extent to frighten us about the cost that may be involved in sending family allowances outside this country, but I think we have to remember that the terms on which this is done form part of a multilateral agreement between the nine Member-States. Of course, the terms decided in this programme will affect all British citizens who go abroad and who will benefit from the decisions which are taken. As I understand it, more British citizens went to EEC countries last year than came here from those countries; so if we accept the basis of the policy we should look closely at the cost to see what can be decided for the good of those people who are working either in this country or within the other Member-States of the Community.
Each of the areas covered by the programme will obviously require careful

1189
consideration in relation to the Member-States concerned, whether or not the migrant workers are nationals of the Member-States—and of course regard must be had to the overall Community policy of future manpower needs. As your Lordships know, there has been a great deal of discussion as to the benefits for the Third World countries who are sending workers to the EEC and thereby losing valuable manpower themselves, thus preventing them from developing as fast as they otherwise might.
Therefore, I particularly welcome the part of the programme which refers to co-ordinating policies between the European Community and developing countries, in order that the people concerned should be able to develop their full potential and be trained, possibly in the European Community, in order to be able to go back to their own countries to teach the skills needed there. But if they remain in the European Community, they should have the right of every other citizen of the Community to complete nondiscrimination and to equality of treatment in the working conditions which obtain in the country in which they are living. This is a very important principle which we should be prepared to accept and which we should be seen to be prepared to accept. In this regard, I particularly welcome the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on vocational training because, as she pointed out, citizens of the United Kingdom do not have an automatic right to this. But if we are to play our part in helping developing countries, one of the best forms of aid we can probably give is to allow migrants to have vocational training, in order to enable them to improve the conditions in their own countries.
I should like to say a word about social security benefits, because it becomes more and more evident, if one looks at the benefits in the other Member-States, that in nearly all cases they are very much better and at higher rates than obtain in this country. One of the great difficulties is the exchange rate. If one looks at the kind of family allowances that are available in the different Member-States and translates them into pounds sterling, they show considerable differences. This is one of the reasons why those of us who have always looked forward to closer European integration feel that the only
1190
hope for full benefit for all members of the Community is by the eventual achievement of economic and monetary union. It is only on that basis that we shall get full social security benefits for all working people within Member-States.
Similarly, we can learn a great deal from the other Member-States in the way they organise their social security benefits. We have for so long in this country considered ourselves to be the leaders in this field, and I know it is very difficult to make comparisons, tabularly or statistically. But, from the individual cases that one comes across, it appears that the other Member-States undoubtedly have very high standards, and in several cases they are higher than our own.
With regard to housing, we probably have one of the best records in the Member-States because, on the whole, the people who come to this country come to stay here permanently. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, very rightly drew attention to the difficulties in the educational field in the case of those who come to this country to stay here. Therefore, it is in both their interests and the interests of our community to give them an education based on English schooling and English teaching, rather than encourage them to have teaching in their own languages. The problems of, for instance, Italian migrants are very different, nearly all of whom leave Italy with the intention of returning. Although many Italian migrants intend to stay for a time in the country to which they migrate, their eventual intention is always to return at the end. So there is always a very deep desire to have their children taught Italian, and learn the culture and traditions of their own country. This problem simply does not arise in the case of the vast majority of migrants who come to this country, and from whose work we benefit.
If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that non-British subjects are excluded from the housing lists of local authorities—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I said that they were specifically excluded in the London Borough of Ealing.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that that was so in every other borough as well. But perhaps we can check that in

1191
Hansard. In any case, I know a great many foreigners living in local authority housing who have been extremely well and very fairly treated. I must say that about the record of those local authorities who are not here to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because they make great efforts in very many cases to provide housing on an equal basis with British nationals.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness again, but I wonder whether she has had the opportunity to read the PEP report on racial minorities and Council Housing. If she had read it, I do not think she could have made the assertion that local authorities treat ethnic minorities on an equal basis. The proportion of West Indians and people of Asian origin in public housing is much smaller than that of the indigenous population.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord relies on his reading. I rely on my experience as a social worker for 15 years in Kennington. I have not had the benefit of reading the book, but I have had the benefit of seeing West Indians, Italians, Germans, Greeks and Turks living in council housing, so it is a question of my eyes against the noble Lord's book and we had better leave the matter there. With regard to the solving of the non-contributory social security benefits problem, it can be solved and, by and large, I think we shall find that it will be the British citizen who benefits. We must take the broad view and fall in with our European neighbours as to the manner in which this is to be done; but again I must draw attention to the very great difficulty of exchange rates.
Turning to the education of the children of migrant workers, as your Lordships know a sum has been allocated specifically for that purpose under Article IV of the European Social Fund. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to tell us a little more about what kind of programme the Government envisage when they make application for sums from that Fund. I understood that this was to be allowed for in this year's Budget. No doubt the children of migrant workers in this country will be
1192
eligible for part of the proceeds of that Fund to assist their training as well as sums which will be made available for the reception of migrant workers into Member-States. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord will be prepared to enlarge on this matter. So far as education is concerned, it should also be said that one has to consider the kind of education that the migrant workers want for their children. Some of them are demanding a far higher standard of education for their children than some of our schools are able to offer. They will not accept education for their children in mixed schools, nor will they accept the lack of religious instruction, and naturally they insist on having their own language taught in order to maintain their own cultural traditions and history. I presume that courses are arranged in these cases and that school buildings are made available, even if the teachers are not always to be found. I am not sure how easy it is to train teachers in this country to teach English as a foreign language to many of these migrants. Obviously, this will need a certain amount of expenditure and a considerable number of people will be involved. No doubt Article IV of the Social Fund will be used to train teachers to teach English to migrants, and again we should like further information about this.
The proposals need a great deal of study. I am not at all sure what the effects of the trade union rights will mean to workers who come to this country; and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us what the effect upon them of the closed shop will he. Will a migrant worker be obliged to join a trade union in order to get work? This would be contrary to practice in many of the other Member-States. It could certainly never be harmonised. Under the German Constitution, for instance, it is not possible to restrict a worker from working if he does not join a trade union. There may therefore be a conflict of law in this area. Certainly we should welcome further statistics on the problem of migrant workers, so that proper plans could be made for their training, housing, educational and social needs. Above all, proper plans must be made to enable them to fit into the employment needs of the community.

1193
Finally, may I say a word about the electoral rights of migrant workers. Certainly we should like there to be a uniform period of residence in all of the Member-States for the acquisition of nationality by a migrant worker, be he a European Community national, or be he somebody who enters from another country under an association agreement. The very uneven legislation regarding the acquisition of nationality would certainly benefit from a degree of harmonisation and common sense in that area because it creates great hardship at the moment.
Secondly, I should like to see a right for any European Community national who is resident in another Member-State automatically to be able to record his or her vote during the Election of the country of his nationality at the relevant consulate or Embassy. We had this problem during the referendum, when British residents abroad were not allowed to vote on a matter which was of great importance to the future both of themselves and the citizens of this country. It is certainly a democratic right that anybody should have the right to vote for the Government of their country, and I think this is the kind of thing which should be possible throughout the Community. Community citizens should be able to vote at their consulate. In particular, when we come to direct elections in 1978, I think this point should be carefully watched. Wherever Community nationals may be they should be able to take part in a direct election to the European Parliament.
I will not go into all the other matters that are contained in this document. There are obviously enormous implications but from what the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has said, it is only a draft programme and its contents are obviously vague. But we on this side of the House hope that this programme will lead to a better integration of the migrants who come to contribute to the wealth of the Community and that their rights are safeguarded and that they are free from discrimination from any of the Member-States.
9.47 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, I should like to say that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and the members of his Committee for
1194
the attention which they have given to this programme of action for immigrants and for the care which they have taken in looking at what in many cases is a very vague document. We welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to discuss the implications of these proposals, and to say something of the way in which the Government are approaching the discussion of them which is to take place at the Council of Social Affairs Ministers on 18th December. But at this time of the night I will take it for granted that the House would wish me to deal only with bare essentials. Therefore, I shall deal first with the co-ordination of immigration policies. Changes in immigration laws are unlikely to be necessary unless the Council were to agree to measures which would bear directly on the rights of Member-States to control the numbers of those entering their territories or the conditions under which they entered. Action of this kind would go beyond that which the United Kingdom Government would be prepared to accept at the present time.
The Community has recently put in hand an examination of special Community rights which might be accorded within the EEC. It is the view of the United Kingdom Government that no action should be taken on the proposals in the draft action programme for granting political rights to migrant workers until this wider study has been completed. The Select Committee has referred in paragraph 2 of its Report to the proposals for a uniform system for the payment of family benefits. This proposal affects EEC migrant workers whose families are in a Member-State other than that in which the worker is employed. The family has usually simply remained at home. Under EEC Social Security Regulations for migrant workers, an Italian worker in this country, for example, receives family allowances at the United Kingdom rates for his children in Italy and vice versa.
The Regulations provide that France alone shall make payments at the rates obtaining in the worker's home country. The Commission is required by the Regulations to make proposals for a uniform system to the Council, and after lengthy discussions, it has put forward a draft amending Regulation which is designed to put family benefits for the migrant EEC worker in France on the same basis

1195
as that which applies currently to other Member-States. The Government concur with the views expressed by the Select Committee on this matter and would agree that the export of family allowances for non-EEC nationals, where appropriate, is best regulated by bilateral agreements.
The question of attendance allowances was mentioned. At the present time, under the EEC Regulations, a worker from any EEC country who is employed here would be entitled to the attendance allowances in respect of himself. He would also be able to export it if, because of his disability, he went home, but that is as far as it is exported at the moment.
My Lords, as for the Committee's observations on the subject of contributory unemployment benefit for EEC migrant workers, I would merely remark that there are in fact no specific proposals in the Action Programme for extending the present rules for this benefit, which are currently embodied in the EECs social security regulations. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the rules, which have been in force here since April 1973, have not given rise to any undue difficulty. It is, of course, true that if a worker from another EEC country becomes unemployed, registers here and remains for four weeks, is available for work and afterwards goes home, he can be paid up to a period of three months. That payment is made by the authorities in his home country. Payment on their part is made subject to the conditions we specify concerning registration and availability for work. We arc required to reimburse the other authorities later, although we hope eventually to make arrangements with the other States for mutual waiver of these costs.
At present, the unemployed worker whose home is elsewhere within the EEC and who leaves without registering and without remaining four weeks is not, of course, entitled to payment. He is entitled to aggregate his contributions, but that would arise only when he commenced paying contributions in his own country. It may be that by mutual arrangement there could in future be some improvement on that, but that is as far as I would go. On the question of supplementary benefit we contend that this is a social
1196
payment and is outside the scope of the proposed co-ordination of regulations.
My Lords, paragraph 3 of the Select Committee's Report refers to an apparent conflict between proposals relating to vocational training for migrants and the policy of the United Kingdom in this matter. Although I ought perhaps to explain what is involved here, I do not think that in practice difficulty need arise. The position is that anyone entering this country to take work, other than EEC nationals, has first to obtain a work permit from the Department of Employment. It has been the Government's policy for some years that, with a few minor exceptions, one of the conditions governing the issue of such permits is that they shall be for specific employment, involving a measure of skill, and a skill which is not available from the resident labour force. Permits may be renewable annually, but after four years the worker concerned is free of permit controls. To ensure that the conditions of entry are met during the period of permit control, the permit holder is not permitted to change his job without the prior approval of the Department of Employment, and he is not eligible for Government-sponsored vocational training. I quite accept that potentially there is a risk here of conflict between our existing rules, and possible action by the Community so far as rights to training for migrants are concerned, but the Government do not believe that there should be insuperable difficulty in ensuring that any arrangements approved by the Council will not adversely affect the arrangements we operate as an essential part of work permit control.
On the subject of mother tongue and culture tuition, the Select Committee has suggested at paragraph 5 that local education authorities might not be prepared to accept responsibility for such provision. The case for such provision is in itself very complex and no general rule applicable to all cases would be safe. The United Kingdom has argued in the course of discussions in Brussels that, as is the customary practice in the United Kingdom, decisions on curriculum affecting school children rest with those best able to assess the individual's needs; that is, the school and the local education authority, in consultation, as appropriate, with parents.

1197
On the question of mandatory awards, referred to by the Select Committee in paragraph 6 of its Report, the Commission has taken the view that our residence rules, applying as they do to United Kingdom as well as non-United Kingdom nationals, are compatible with Community obligations.
On the question of information, there is a British leaflet now available for aid to immigrants, and next year the Community will be producing several leaflets of their own in all languages. I think that kind of communication is vital. I would remind the House that the action programme covers much more than we have debated. It is very largely—not wholly, but very largely—concerned with the problems of the Continent, problems which are not quite with us; we have problems, but they are somewhat different.
In conclusion, I should like to say something of the United Kingdom Government's attitude towards future Community action based on the draft action programme. As I mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom Government fully supported the prominence given to action for the benefit of migrants in the Community's Social Action Programme. We have continued in the discussion within the Council machinery on the Commission's draft action programme to support in principle early agreement on action to secure fair treatment of migrants and their families. We have argued that this should be directed to longer objectives of extending to those allowed into Member-States for work rights and access to benefits equal to those available to nationals. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to dispute either the importance of fair treatment for migrants within the Community or the general objectives to which the Government are working. That is not to say, of course, that particular proposals put forward by the Commission may be either undesirable or insufficient, and it is to this to which the Report of the Select Committee is largely directed.
Your Lordships will have had the opportunity of considering the information which the Government have made available about their attitude towards the details of the proposals in the Explanatory Memorandum submitted to Parliament on 28th May, and more particularly
1198
the Supplementary Memorandum submitted on 27th November. I hope this information, together with what I have said today, will help allay any fears which your Lordships may feel about the implications of the decisions which the Council of Ministers will be taking on the draft action programme at its meeting on 18th December. I can assure the House that before these decisions are taken the Government will pay close attention to the comments in the Report and to the comments which have been made in this debate.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, may I briefly thank the two noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Elles, who have taken part in this debate, and thank Lord Alexander of Potter hill for his valuable contribution. May I also thank the Minister for the reply he has given—which I will study with great care tomorrow—and, through him, thank the Departmental representatives who gave very considerable help to the Sub-Committee in this matter. I am left with just one worry. So much is happening in Brussels, so much is emerging from Brussels, and unless these scrutinies arouse public interest and, where appropriate, public concern, we shall find ourselves faced with a vast number of changes which we may or may not like but of which we are wholly innocent until they in fact happen. Much more concern, much more interest, much more activity, much larger attendances, should be related to what is happening and what is emerging from Brussels. That is no criticism of the Common Market; it is a word of warning that much is being passed off as dull and unimportant when in fact it is very important and sometimes crucial to the life of this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HOUSING ACTION AREAS
  HOUSING ACTION AREAS
  EUROCONTROL CHARGES ON AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
  EUROCONTROL CHARGES ON AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
  DOG RESTRAINT:ACOUSTIC DEVICE
  DOG RESTRAINT:ACOUSTIC DEVICE
  VHF COMMUNICATIONS BAND
  VHF COMMUNICATIONS BAND
  GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEMS
  GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEMS