Sitting of 2 July 1976

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)
  Mr. Roger Moate: I rise to present a petition from Ferruccio John Claderan on behalf of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and Kenneth Michael Turner on behalf of the British Transport Docks Board. As I shall seek to move a motion arising from the petition, I request that it be read by the Clerk.
  The CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
  The Humble Petition of Ferruccio John Claderan of 16 St. Martins-le-Grand, London, EC1A 4EJ, Solicitor on behalf of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, of Felixstowe, Suffolk, IP11 8SY, the Plaintiffs in the action in the Queen's Bench Division High Court of Justice No. 1976, F. No. 1395 and of Kenneth Michael Turner, of Melbury House, Melbury Terrace, London. NW1 6JY, Solicitor on behalf of the British Transport Docks Board, of Melbury House, Melbury Terrace, London. NW1 6JY, the Defendants in the said action which said action is listed for hearing in London on Monday the 12th day of July 1976.
  Sheweth
  First:
  THAT the Plaintiffs claim in the action is for:

  1. A declaration that the Agreement in writing made the 21st November 1975 between the Plaintiffs and Defendants is void by reason of the written notice dated 28th May 1976 given by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants pursuant to clause 5 of the said Agreement;

  2. A declaration that by reason of the said written notice dated 28th May 1976 the Defendants are bound to withdraw the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill.

  Alternatively:
  3. A declaration that the said Agreement made the 21st November 1975 is ultra vires the statutory powers of the Defend-
  796
  ant Board and is thereby void and unenforceable;
  4. A declaration that the proposed acquisition by the Defendants of the whole of the issued ordinary stock of the Plaintiff Company constitutes an abuse by the Defendants of a dominant position contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome;
  5. A declaration that the said Agreement made the 21st November 1975, in implementing the aforesaid abuse of a dominant position is invalid and void and contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome;
  6. A declaration that the form of Agreement made the 21st November 1975 between the parties herein is not a binding enforceable and valid contract;
  And in any event:
  7. An injunction

  (i) restraining the Defendants by their servants or agents or otherwise from taking any steps whatsoever to promote the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill or endeavouring in any way whatsoever to secure its enactment;

  (ii) acting in any way pursuant to or in any way asserting the validity of the said Agreement made the 21st November 1975.

  Second:
  THAT during the course of the consideration of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill by a Select Committee of Your Honourable House references were made to the Agreement made in writing the 21st November 1975 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and to the effect on that Agreement of amendments proposed to be made in the Bill.
  Third:
  THAT reference is desired to be made during the course of the action to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of Your Honourable House which considered the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill on Tuesday, 27th April 1976, Wednesday, 28th April 1976 and Thursday, 29th April 1976:
  Wherefore Your Petitioners Pray that Your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the Proper Officers of the House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Minutes of Evidence and formally to prove the same before the court according to their competence.
  And Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Moate: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to the proper Officers of the House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Minutes of Evidence and formally to prove the same, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Minutes.
  Question put.
  Mr. William Hamilton: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. It cannot be pursued today.

WATER SUPPLY
The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on drought. As I told the House in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on Monday 3rd May, there was then already a danger that parts of the country would be facing water shortages this year. Their severity would vary very much from area to area, but on the basis of something like average rainfall, the water authorities hoped to avoid major interruptions over the summer.
Since that time, the special group of senior officials and representatives of the water industry which I established at the end of April has met regularly and I have been kept informed on a weekly basis. During the last week it has become clear that a combination of the underlying water shortage with the abnormally hot and dry summer we have experienced in the southern half of the country this year now faces us with potentially severe problems of water supply in a number of areas—primarily in parts of East Anglia, the East Midlands, the South and West, and South Wales. A great deal will, of course, depend on the weather over the next couple of months and, crucially, on the way in which the public respond to the water authorities' requests to save water, but it would be irresponsible not to recognise that over the late summer and autumn we may in some places have to tackle a series of localised water emergencies.
We have discussed with the water authorities the range of powers available for dealing with this, and have concluded as a result that they are inadequate for what is a quite unprecedented situation. In particular, they have two major defects; they do not allow for progressive limitations on non-essential uses of water in a developing shortage, and they do not enable the water undertakers to impose in an emergency a flexible and equitable water rationing system.
798
We have accordingly decided to bring forward urgently a short Bill designed to confer on statutory water undertakers new powers of control over use of water in times of shortage. Essentially we shall be building on the powers for drought Orders already contained in the Water Act 1958. The exercise of the new powers will as at present be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales, and they will be applied for limited periods in specific areas where the water supply situation warrants it.
I do not want to exaggerate the problems. Over much of the country, water supplies should be adequate to see us through without difficulty until the winter rains come. But groundwater levels and river flows have fallen abnormally low, and it is factors like these which make the future uncertain. The unprecedented weather conditions, which we share with large parts of Northern Europe, continue. In the light of this, it is right that we should arm ourselves well in time against possible difficulties later in the year. I hope, too, that everyone will recognise that this places a heavy responsibility on all of us to make sensible and economic use of our water resources.
Mr. Arthur Jones: The unfortunate necessity for a measure of this character is widely recognised, and I think that in that context the right hon. Gentleman's phrase "until the winter rains come" is not a phrase with which we are very familiar in terms of our own climatic conditions.
Certainly there will be a welcome for the Government proposals in many parts of the country. The availability of water supplies has clearly significantly deteriorated in recent months, particularly since the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 3rd May, when he said:
"the immediate position is under control."—[Official Report, 3rd May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 837.]
Certainly it has become measurably worse since then.
The announcement on 23rd June to the effect that there were 26 drought Orders in 17 counties was an indication then of the serious situation. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us to what extent drought Orders have been

799
widened since then. There was no mention particularly of food production and national interest in the context of water supply, and I think the House would like an assurance in that respect. I refer to farming, horticulture and, particularly, livestock.
What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to promote the saving of water consumption, particularly by heavy users in industry? I have in mind the immense quantities used for cooling in the electricity generating industry.
The regional water authorities, of course, are capital intensive, and the high level of water charges is of widespread and increasing concern. Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position with regard to capital borrowings for the industry? This matter was referred to in his review of the water industry in England and Wales, but with fixed interest rates at their present levels over a 60-year period—this is, I know, in his mind—it has been suggested to me that significant savings could be made if regional water authorities were able to borrow within a more flexible framework and not entirely from the National Loans Fund.
I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition wish to co-operate in the proposed legislation, in comparison with other legislation that we have before the House, but I hope he will be able to allow a reasonable period in which we may look at the terms of the Bill. Can he give us any idea when it is likely to be available? I am sure that if there is adequate time for reasonable consideration, a favourable wind will be given to his proposals.
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he spoke. I know that he appreciates, as I do, that while there must be an opportunity for proper scrutiny of the Bill, we are dealing with a matter that is of great importance, and I am grateful for his undertaking of co-operation in the general principles concerned.
Dealing with his individual points, with regard to agriculture and industry, we are very concerned about agriculture. We are giving this full weight, and the regional water authorities themselves have the matter very much in hand. As
800
for industry, what we are trying to do by the measures that we are proposing to take is to ensure that it will be able to go ahead with as little interruption as possible. That is why the sort of powers that we are seeking are for dealing with the more non-essential uses of water.
I have found during the past few weeks a tremendous amount of co-operation and ingenuity on the part of the regional water authorities. They have been well aware of the situation in their areas. I have, however, recommended to them that there should be local advisory service committees, which will be able to deal with questions that will inevitably arise area by area and locality by locality.
As for the long-term situation and the hon. Gentleman's reference to the borrowing powers of regional water authorities as this is rather of longer term, it will be considered in the later consultations.
Sir G. de Freitas: Does my right hon Friend realise that although, in the Mid lands in particular, we welcome these urgent steps to meet the immediate problem, we are very much concerned about the longer-term problem? It is not only a question of borrowing. For over 20 years many of us concerned with the Midlands have suggested the establishment of water grids to bring water to the dry counties from the wet regions, and the storage, for use inland, of water from the four rivers that pour into the Wash. Successive Governments have brushed that proposal aside. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to treat the longer-term problem seriously?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We really have to consider the long-term problem, and we may have to give it more consideration than we have done in the past. Nobody can be a weather prophet, but it may be that there is a small climatic change in our country. One simply does not know.
In reply to my right hon. Friend's question, this is one of the factors with which a stronger national water authority than perhaps exists at the moment might very well have to deal.
Mr. Freud: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on the Liberal Bench welcome the move that he has announced, and pledge our support?

801
However, it is fair to say that any action that has been taken has been cosmetic rather than fundamental. It seems to us that the right hon. Gentleman should have considered the fact that although the present water shortage may well be unprecedented, it was pretty similar last year, and the pipeline that was built to bring gas from the North Sea could easily have been accompanied by an adjacent pipeline to carry water.
May I put three points to the right hon. Gentleman? First, instead of pouring money into regional water authorities, which are overstaffed and in many cases inefficient—indeed, many private water companies are much more efficient than the regional water authorities—would he consider a grant to farming communities to enable them to build reservoirs for this sort of emergency?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, electorally unpopular though it may be to say so, the domestic sector is much better able to do without water than is industry or agriculture?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in particular, some of the abuses of water? I remind him, for example, of what happens at racecourses such as Ascot and Newbury, which use millions of gallons of water. Such vast use in land husbandry would produce an entirely different result. Is it not essential, overall, to preserve local discrimination regarding what to do with the water that we have?
Mr. Silkin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. As to the distinction that he draws between private water companies and regional water authorities, I can only say that Nature does not make that distinction. Nature is dry or rainy, according to how it feels.
In responding to the hon. Gentleman's last point, about racecourses, I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that I am president of a golf club. I accept that activities such as the sprinkling of greens in areas of water shortage are not only wrong in themselves but are a positive disincentive to ordinary law-abiding citizens to save water. That leads me on to the point that, as I am sure we all accept, we must give preference to agricultural production and to our industrial programme. There can be no doubt about that.
802
In his opening observation, the hon. Gentleman commented on the powers. We are dealing here with a drought of greater dimensions and greater severity than any records have shown over the past 250 years—not all over the country, but certainly in the southern part of England. It is not that there are no powers. Powers were given under the 1958 Act, and in 1973 the Conservative Government, when introducing the Water Bill, did not think that there would be any need to intensify those powers—rightly, in my view. They were more than adequate for what was shown by any records we had over the past 250 years.
It is the change that has occurred in this year, which may or may not continue, that has caused us to believe—this is on the advice and request of the water authorities themselves—that we ought to tackle the matter in a rather stronger way.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that people outside the House will greatly welcome the fact that the Government are now taking the drought very seriously? As the matter is urgent, perhaps he will explain why the Bill is not ready today. Second, may we have an assurance that counties such as Northamptonshire and the others affected will not be left to fend for themselves, and that directives will go out to those with adequate water supplies, such as the London area, to supply water where at all possible to the counties suffering shortage? Finally, is it not about time that we considered a national "Save it" campaign for water?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put the matter. As I said in my statement, he raised the question on 3rd May, and we had already set up the joint working committee at that time. I remember that he welcomed the setting up of that committee, and he was right to do so, because it has given us an early-warning system. After all, what we are talking about now is an extreme situation, which may or may not arise—but in prudence we want to guard against it—in, say, early September.
I know about the hon. Gentleman's own area. Indeed, with his permission, I hope to visit it on Monday to see for myself. I understand his concern for that area—a concern which, quite rightly,

803
is felt by every hon. Member for his own area. But the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman puts me is this: any system by means of which one achieves large-scale movement of water from areas of plenty to areas which might suffer drought are extremely expensive and in any case long-term. One cannot solve the immediate problem by those long-term measures, but I agree that that ought not only to be kept in mind but moved forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible will be done to help his own area and all other drought-affected areas.
Mr. Roderick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation has highlighted the need for a national water grid system, instead of the piecemeal movement of water from one area to another, so that we have a system similar to that used for electricity and gas supplies? Will my right hon. Friend take it also that people in my constituency have for long been thoroughly tired of having to pay inflated charges for water while at the same time supplying so much water to other areas? Is it not time for an immediate concerted effort to install a national water grid, with a national charging system?
Mr. Silkin: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The trouble is that that would not get us out of the immediate difficulties. I know that my hon. Friend has studied the consultative document with care, and I believe that all these questions will naturally emerge as we continue the consultation process on which we have already started.
Sir David Renton: As my large farming constituency is one of the worst affected, I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) with regard to food production. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the normal sources of water for spray irrigation no longer exist, and that from day to day onwards, now, crops will fail unless there is rain or spray irrigation? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this as a separate and special matter of urgency, quite apart from the Bill, the introduction of which we welcome?
Mr. Silkin: I know about the area that the right hon. and learned Gentleman
804
represents, and, of course, he is quite right. I wish to reinforce the absolute necessity of safeguarding agriculture in every way we possibly can. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about spray irrigation is well in hand, not only in the water authorities but in the joint group that I set up in April.
Mr. Spearing: I commend my right hon. Friend on the setting up of the monitoring group to which he referred as long ago as last April, but will he answer two questions? First, what consideration has been given to the terminal report of the Water Resources Board, which went into the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), that is, what is popularly called a water grid? Has this been considered by the Central Water Planning Unit or the National Water Council? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that consultations have taken place, and, if so, tell us when the outcome will be available?
Second, will my right hon. Friend ask the National Water Council to investigate, perhaps with the National Farmers' Union, the possibilities of maximising water percolation next autumn and winter, so that we may have maximum recharging of groundwater resources, perhaps on a small scale on each land holding? This might avoid the possibility of shortage next year if we get only a moderate rainfall this winter.
Mr. Silkin: I confess that I am not technician enough to be able to answer my hon. Friend's second question, but I shall pass it on to the National Water Council and ensure that the council is aware of it. In response to my hon. Friend's first point, I can tell him that the council has looked at the report and has submitted a number of recommendations upon it to the Government. We are at present studying that matter in detail.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: Would it not have been more impressive if the Minister had acknowledged that, sooner or later, supplies of water must be metered, as are electricity and gas supplies, and if he had brought with him a programme—spread over 10 or 20 years if need be, because of limited resources—starting with the

805
largest users, to implement such a plan, since only thus can we achieve fair and reasonable control over the water supplies which are needed year by year in greater quantities?
Mr. Silkin: With respect, I cannot see how that would have helped in the immediate situation, whether it be right or wrong, and my task today was not to be impressive but to see that we do not run into an unnecessary water crisis.
Mr. William Hamilton: When will the legislation be ready, and will it apply to Scotland, since there are shortages also in Scotland in certain areas? Meanwhile, what short-term measures are there for encouraging water authorities throughout the United Kingdom to co-operate, since there are some still with water surpluses while others suffer shortage?
Mr. Silkin: It is always difficult to make people understand why there should be water shortages in some parts of an island that has surpluses of water in other parts. We have tried to ensure that the water authorities come together and work together—and they have. If the present possible crisis has taught them anything, it has taught them to come together to share their problems.
The situation in Scotland is different from that in England. In Scotland the matter is under control, but in the South of England we are dealing with something that has not happened for 250 years—in living memory. The question of what papers are necessary for Scotland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), but I have two questions to ask. First, will the Minister consider advising the regional water authorities to alter the present charging system to industry, because it does not encourage them to conserve water supplies? Secondly—and I have written to the Minister about this on several occasions—will he encourage water authorities to put less money into personnel and more into capital projects to utilise and conserve the vast quantities of water that are pouring into the sea. That matter was referred to by the right
806
hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas).
Mr. Silkin: I was referring to your own mortality, Mr. Speaker when I inferred earlier that living memory was 250 years. Let us say that the present water situation is one that has not been recorded for 250 years.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestions are for the long term, not for the immediate possible crisis. But he must not think that any point made will be ignored, whatever the answer is. The present water authorities have been in existence for two years and we already have the consultation programme that we promised after two years.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is the Minister aware that the lack of rainwater coming down the Thames Valley causes a particular pollution problem? Will he appeal to all users of the River Thames, particularly those using pleasure boats who are throwing an unprecedented number of beer cans into the river, to exercise special restraint?
Mr. Silkin: My first task must be to give those powers to the water authorities that they will require if the crisis arises. How they deal with their own area must be a matter for them individually. If I made an appeal it would be that people should listen to what their regional water authorities tell them in each locality and follow their instructions.
Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that in the areas covered by the South Staffordshire Water Board there is at present no problem because of good planning over the years and the geographical position of the area? Will he give urgent attention to the possibility of such boards giving assistance to hard-pressed areas? Is he aware that his assurances on giving farming priority will be welcomed in my constituency, as will his assurances about industry, particularly if it includes the production of beer, which will also receive widespread national approval? Will he also tackle the problem of the time it takes to apply for and be granted drought Orders?
Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His last question will undoubtedly come up at the Committee stage of the proposed Bill. Let us look at

807
that then. Some form of immediacy is necessary.
Mr. Goodhart: The drought has clearly taken the Meteorological Office by surprise. Are there any plans to increase the resources and capacity of the office, or to increase the resources that we make available to the international meteorological organisation?
Mr. Silkin: That is not my responsibility. The Meteorological Office generally is doing a very good job. It has been working very well with us and the water authorities, and I am very satisfied with its performance.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed generally? I brought the matter to his attention during Question Time some weeks ago, and he informed me that the matter was local rather than national. Is he aware of the irresponsible attitude by the public in the indiscriminate use of water? For example, a golf course in Sussex was recently excessively watered. Can something be done by massive advertising to convince the public? Will he make it obligatory to place a large brick in the cistern of each lavatory? That would make a tremendous difference if it were repeated millions of times.
Mr. Silkin: These are matters to be left to the regional authorities. There is a massive controversy throughout the country—a greater controversy than that which exists in the House—about whether one should put a brick in the cistern. As I understand it, the germ of the tremendous controversy is that the size of cisterns differ and one might have to flush twice in certain areas. There is no national crisis, but we face the possibility that, with the present type of weather that we have been having, there will be very bad local conditions. We therefore want to give powers to the water authorities.
Mr. Moate: Is the Minister aware that in some areas householders with cesspits are alarmed about flushing at all? Will he examine the possibility of adding a clause to his Bill providing for the water authorities to apportion treatment costs equally between all households, because the high costs are of critical importance
808
to 900,000 householders? That idea has already won the approval of certain of his colleagues.
Mr. Silkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman, but he must consider the problem from my point of view. We are dealing with a possible series of emergencies, and it is right that we should act to deal with them as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. I do not want to complicate it, even though there are a number of good points I was grateful for the assurance by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) that the Opposition will be with us on the general principles of the Bill. It is important to get it through as quickly as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND (GOVERNMENT)
11.39 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
As the House will recall, the arrangements for direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 are renewable for a maximum of one year at a time. I have said on a number of occasions that at present there is no alternative to continuing direct rule. I am therefore seeking the approval of the House today to an Order extending the statutory basis for direct rule for another year from 16th July.
However, the Government's long-term aim is to see a devolved system of government established in Northern Ireland which will enjoy widespread support across the community. The Government regretted that the Constitutional Convention was unable to produce a constitutional solution which commanded sufficiently widespread public acceptance. The Convention failed in its immediate purpose. We have to face this fact. The Convention was nevertheless very useful. It showed just how hard it is to solve the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland—it is just as difficult for Ulstermen as for anyone else. Furthermore, the Convention enabled people to meet who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to do so.

809
I do not wish to say much today about the talks that are currently taking place between the official Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I am not involved in the talks, and it would not be helpful if I were to rush in with comment at this stage. I am always ready to entertain constructive and responsible ideas from those in Northern Ireland. I have always believed that a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will have to be worked out in Northern Ireland itself.
I would make two other points. The first is one I made to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention in a letter I sent him last January, when I said that:
"Experience in recent years has made it plain that no system of government within Northern Ireland will be stable or effective unless both parts of the community acquiesce in that system and are willing to work to support it".
That remains as true as ever it was and means that no proposals for the future government of Northern Ireland could be put into effect without the right degree of public support.
But—and this is my third point—the problem is to get the timing right. I have no faith in instant solutions in Northern Ireland or in speed for the sake of speed. We have had—I use words that I have used recently—too many false dawns before. I hope, therefore, that any temptation which people may feel to rush to this or that deadline will be resisted. I am satisfied that there are no early deadlines which need prejudice the orderly progress of discussions.
It has been suggested that it would be technically possible to recall the Convention within the next couple of months. My view is that this would not be the right way to proceed. The Convention has met and completed its task. I do not see that we could turn the clock back.
The important thing is to make sure that the preparation of the ground is thorough and the spadework sure. Given this, I am sure that we can provide satisfactory ways of carrying forward an agreement that can command sufficiently widespread public support. Any agreement must, of course, be acceptable to this House, but my letter of 14th January to the Chairman—which was published
810
a White Paper—set out many of the points to which the Government would attach importance. In particular, there can be no question of the Army being placed under the control of a devolved Administration.
For the present, however, direct rule will continue and the Government have been considering whether any changes should be made in the procedures. I have discussed this with a number of hon. Members, and there was a most useful debate on 10th June which touched on these matters, and in which a number of ideas were put forward, including suggestions by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Government have taken these and other views into account in reaching our conclusions.
First, if the House agrees, the Government thought it would be right to remove the limitation in Standing Orders on the number of meetings of the Northern Ireland Committee which may be held in a Session, thus providing greater opportunity for debate on Northern Ireland matters.
I turn now to legislation. During the first period of direct rule, and again since July 1974, legislation dealing with matters which were devolved to the Northern Ireland Parliament and Assembly has been made by Order in Council. This must continue to be the main way of legislating for Northern Ireland. But I think that we can improve the opportunities for scrutiny and debating these Orders, of which there can be 20 or 30 in a Session, covering a very wide range of subjects.
Thus, for example, I shall be introducing this autumn Orders amending the Northern Ireland laws on compensation for injury to persons and damage to property. Compensation arrangements are steeped in the special features of Irish law and history. Incidentally, I have had inquiries on this and I have heard comment from time to time that they ought to be speeded up a bit to get it done. I repeat that they are steeped in the special features of Irish law and history. The changes must be based on this special legal background. It needs. Northern Ireland legislation, and I shall proceed by Order.
Northern Ireland Orders generally are published as proposals before they are

811
formally laid in Parliament, thus allowing time for consultations to take place with interested parties in Northern Ireland, and Members are equally free to comment at that stage. I intend to ensure that, as a matter of routine, copies of these proposals are sent to each of the major political parties in Northern Ireland. Given the increased time available in the Northern Ireland Committee, it would be possible, if Members so wished, for some of the draft Orders to be discussed in that Committee as a preliminary stage before they were finalised and formally laid before Parliament.
The existing arrangements for the draft Orders once laid to be debated, either in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House, will of course continue. I hope that more advantage will be taken in future of the scope for holding longer debates in Committee than is normally possible on the Floor of the House. We shall, however, be willing to consider the possibility of an extended debate on the Floor of the House, such as that on the recent industrial relations Order, in a few cases where there seems to be special justification.
It has been suggested that we should more frequently apply Great Britain Bills to Northern Ireland. The Government are glad to accept this suggestion in principle. Where special adaptations are necessary for Northern Ireland in what would then be a United Kingdom Bill, we envisage that, where necessary, it would be a simple arrangement to provide for technical adaptation and amendments to previous Northern Ireland measures to be made by an Order subject to negative resolution.
These technical adaptations and amendments are important. They are not concerned with policy. They are the means by which we shall maintain the currently existing Northern Ireland statute book. This statute book is derived from the historic corpus of law relating to Ireland. It provided the law for devolved government. It is, therefore, important that we should maintain the Northern Ireland statute book for the devolved system of government in Northern Ireland that we hope to see in the future.
There are some areas of change in Northern Ireland which will require a full Bill in Parliament. The Fair Employment
812
Bill provides an example of this. We shall continue to introduce legislation in this way when it concerns matters which have traditionally been dealt with by legislation in this House rather than by devolved legislation in Northern Ireland. I would hope, subject to the constraints of the parliamentary programme, to have a Northern Ireland Bill on the administration of justice in the next Session.
Overall, the Government will be looking closely at the need for legislation in fields which we have previously thought it appropriate to leave to a future devolved Government. In particular, we shall now consider whether to legislate to bring Northern Ireland law more closely into harmony with laws in other parts of the country. One example—it is only an example to illustrate the point—is the area of homosexuality and divorce. There are obvious difficulties about such subjects in Northern Ireland circumstances and it would be wrong to act precipitately. But I would welcome the views of people in Northern Ireland, including those of the Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on such subjects. In particular I would welcome the views of Northern Ireland Members.
There has been some comment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about Northern Ireland subordinate legislation. The Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 are not, of course, strictly subordinate legislation They replace the Bills which would have been passed by a Northern Ireland Assembly and inevitably follow the shape of Bills. This is a point which I know the Committee understands. It gives rise, however, to a real difficulty for the Committee in carrying out its remit. There may be further points to be explored here and I shall be glad to discuss this with the Committee.
There has also been criticism by the Joint Committee of the absence of examination of Orders which were previously subject to negative resolution in a Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government will be glad to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Northern Ireland Committee should consider once a year the reports of the Northern Ireland Examiner of Statute Rules who looks at such orders.

813
Finally, among the procedural changes on which I would welcome the views of the House, it might be useful, if the chairmen and members thought it right, for existing Select Committees—for example, the Expenditure Sub-Committees and the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—to include Northern Ireland services within the scope of their examinations, where appropriate. I welcome the scrutiny which the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster gives to the Northern Ireland Departments. The accounting officers of these Departments appear before the Public Accounts Committee on the same lines as those of Whitehall Departments. I am, moreover, arranging to lay before Parliament, and so bring within the purview of the PAC, the accounts of a number of Northern Ireland public bodies which by law have to be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly but which have not hitherto been laid at Westminster.
The question of Northern Ireland representation at Westminster continues to be raised. I accept that Northern Ireland is under-represented and that this becomes more apparent the longer that direct rule continues. I also have to accept that representation at Westminster from Northern Ireland has to be considered in the context of Northern Ireland itself with its divided community, and, indeed, its history. That is why I wrote in the terms that I did to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention on 14th January when I said:—
"The Government does not feel able to recommend re-examination of the question of the number of Northern Ireland constituencies returning members to the United Kingdom Parliament in advance of an agreement on a system of government commanding the most widespread acceptance."
I have also to take into account the current talks between the official Unionist Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party where, I understand, a range of possibilities concerning devolved government in Northern Ireland are being discussed which are germane to the whole subject of representation. My conclusion is that Northern Ireland representation is a serious matter, but I cannot today go further than to admit the deficiency and to repeat that the problem must be considered in the context of the
814
wider issues of the future government in Northern Ireland.
I should like to say a word about administration under direct rule. The House may be interested to know that, on the appointment of Mr. Robert Kidd as the new Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service with effect from yesterday, I have made some small organisational changes. The Department of Finance and the Civil Service Management Division have both become Departments in their own right with their own Permanent Secretaries, instead of being the direct responsibility of the Head of the Civil Service. This will free the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service from many of the day-to-day departmental responsibilities and give him the opportunity, working directly to me, to co-ordinate the activities of all the Northern Ireland Departments and the allocation of resources among them. This will not only assist me during the continuation of direct rule but will, I am sure, be an improvement in organisation, in the context of any form of future devolved government.
I have been talking primarily about procedural and administrative changes, but we must not forget the day-to-day problems with which we have to deal. There are two matters which dominate affairs in Northern Ireland—the economy and security. I shall say more on security later today, but I should now like to say something about the economy.
As the United Kingdom emerges from the present recession, there will be some beneficial effect to the economy in Northern Ireland—indeed, the seasonally-adjusted index of industrial production has risen for the last seven months. But the deep-seated structural weaknesses of the Northern Ireland economy, which is still largely reliant on a few older industries, will remain and the history of violence over the last few years does not encourage new investment. I cannot, therefore, be optimistic about the level of unemployment, which in some parts of the Province is very high indeed. However, the Government are doinng everything reasonably possible to preserve existing jobs and to attract investment to create new ones. The newly established Northern Ireland Development Agency has an important role to play in this.

815
Moreover, I am expecting very soon the results of the wide-ranging review of economic and industrial strategy. Remembering the need to contain the cost of any extra activity within existing public expenditure limits and that the resources available to Northern Ireland cannot be magically increased, I hope that the review will point to ways in which we can most profitably direct our efforts. There is no doubt, however, that the most significant single factor which would lead to increase in investment and reduction of unemployment would be for violence to cease in Northern Ireland.
Direct rule is necessary. We cannot opt out of our responsibilities for Northern Ireland, especially in view of the economic social and security problems of the Province. As a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, of which we are today proposing the renewal, I am directly responsible for the work of the Northern Ireland Government Departments as well as that of the Northern Ireland Office. With the assistance of the two Ministers of State and the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, I am responsible to this House for the full range of government functions in Northern Ireland from health and social services to commerce and industry; from education to agriculture; from housing and local government to security policy and law and order. The Government have onerous responsibilities in Northern Ireland, and responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. We will not neglect any of these. I commend the Order to the House.
11.58 a.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: We on this side agree with the Order, which will ensure that the interim period is extended from 16th July of this year. This is an area in which the official Opposition are basically in agreement with the Government, but I have a number of comments to make about the way in which Northern Ireland is at present governed under direct rule. We fully understand that there is no alternative to direct rule at present, and we regard it as necessary. We also think that it is a form of Government that should be ended as soon as possible. We believe that it should be positive direct rule, as the Secretary of State said, but also that it should be sensitive direct rule.
816
Let me explain what I mean by that phrase. We should like to see better communication between the Government in Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland. I have suggested on more than one occasion how this could be done. I suggested an advisory forum, but that idea was coldly received by the Government. It is true that the Convention enabled people to talk, meet and discuss politics, and I do not suggest that it should be revived, but now that time has elapsed since the Convention the Secretary of State should re-examine my suggestion.
The purpose of the suggestion was to provide a group of people prominent in Northern Ireland life and widely acceptable on whose opinions the right hon. Gentleman might think fit to rely. I felt that this was especially important in the economic sphere with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in the closing passages of his speech. This is a time of considerable economic danger, and there are difficulties in the process of obtaining new investment.
It was suggested that such a plan would cause political complications and would involve no executive powers. That is true, but it is surely not impossible to find such a body as a channel through which the ordinary citizen, without access to Ministers, could have his or her voice heard more effectively.
Leaving that point, I come to the question which the Secretary of State has been discussing of devolution and the representation of Ulster in this House.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have an Economic Council which is representative in that way, and it meets frequently. We could not do it last week, because I had to cut it short in order to get back here to vote.
Mr. Neave: Possibly that difficulty will be overcome in the future. I need not refer to the past. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there is an Economic Council. But will he look more at my idea of an advisory forum covering other areas than economics which would represent the views of the ordinary citizen, so far as that is possible, and do what the Government and we want to do, which is to pave the way eventually for devolved government?

817
We agree with the Government about devolution. We remain in favour of devolved government for Northern Ireland. We do not at this stage wish to take up a doctrinaire position on the exact forms of the institutions to be set up, and it would not be helpful at a time when talks are taking place, as the right hon. Gentleman has described. We would be willing to discuss the question of structure when that was timely, should we be invited to do so by any of the parties. It would be preferable that similar consultations should take place with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as well before a further constitutional plan, following the report of the Convention, becomes the subject of public debate in this House or anywhere else.
I am very much against a deadline. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. What is more, as I said, I do not propose that the Convention should be recalled. What the official Opposition would like to see is the encouragement of gradual progress towards an agreed form of devolution. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there must be the right degree of public support for it. Coupled with this is the question of security, to which, I imagine, we shall all be referring in the discussion on the next Order. But a change would be needed from the policy of Mr. Micawber which is being followed on security matters at present. I hope to discuss that again.
I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. I agree very much with him. It has been widely recognised for some time that Ulster is under-represented here. The Conservative Party said so in its election manifesto in October 1974, and there were also the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report which we have to take into account. We do not regard devolved government in Northern Ireland and increased representation here in this House as being in opposition to each other.
But the extent of increased representation of Northern Ireland in this House will have to be looked at in the context of devolution in the whole of the United Kingdom and, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, in the context of the history of Northern Ireland itself. Until
818
then, it would be wrong in our view to recommend any specific increase in the number of seats. We should confine ourselves to the view that Ulster has without doubt too few Members in this House. The present inter-party talks taking place in Northern Ireland certainly are germane to that view.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he is saying that progress on the representation of Northern Ireland in this House must wait until the discussion of new forms of devolved government has reached a conclusion in Northern Ireland, or that it must merely wait until devolution for the United Kingdom in general has been sorted out in the next Session of Parliament? There may be a difference between the two.
Mr. Neave: There is a difference between the two. I am speaking of the latter, in the context of devolution as a whole within the United Kingdom. I repeat, however, that in our view increased representation in this House and devolved government are not mutually exclusive. Both have to be considered.
If direct rule has to be endured by the people of Northern Ireland, the least that we owe to them is that the legislative procedure here is seen to be fair. The Secretary of State wrote to me about this on 24th June as a result of some private discussion. His first point was that, whenever possible, United Kingdom legislation should be extended to cover Northern Ireland, and he pointed out to me previously that there were bound to be limits in view of the separate Northern Ireland statute book. I think that we should maintain it.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposals need some further study. If we are to make progress towards a Northern Ireland Assembly, with its own Bills, clearly it would be undesirable to extend all Great Britain legislation in this way. We do not wish to be unreasonable, but we shall press for Bills rather than Orders on all major subjects. Many Orders, such as the one on industrial relations which we have already discussed and the housing Orders, are primary legislation, as the Joint Committee reported. The Secretary of State has mentioned compensation arrangements in this connection. That would seem to be a subject more suitable

819
for a Bill rather than proceeding by Order. We welcome what the right hon Gentleman said this morning about a Bill on the administration of justice. We are glad to hear about that.
There are, of course, many Orders on subjects that cannot be dealt with by Bills because of the problem of time. But, although we are not altogether enthusiastic about the idea of a preliminary stage for an Order in the Northern Ireland Committee followed by a debate on the Floor of the House, we accept that that is one way, and we are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove the limitations on the number of meetings of the Northern Ireland Committee.
This still leaves open the disadvantages of the procedure by Order in Council, which does not allow for the amendments which can be made when a Bill is introduced and goes through its various stages. No one should think that consultation is any substitute for legislation, and the Fair Employment Bill is a good example. We must approach this problem with caution and perhaps have mutual consultation about it.
For political reasons, many of these Orders are the method by which Socialism is being automatically applied to Northern Ireland. Some people are in favour of it. On this side of the House, most are not. There is not much opportunity for the ordinary citizen to contest moves towards additional Socialism in Northern Ireland, and this is one of the problems.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of the kind of Bill he has in mind? Is it, for example, the public ownership of Harland and Wolff?
Mr. Neave: I was not talking about that. I was talking about the industrial relations order which implements Socialist legislation. We discussed all this on 11th June. I need not go back over that ground. But clearly this is a Socialist Government, and Orders will reflect their point of view. I merely ask that the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland should have as much opportunity as possible to contest and to amend any provisions of that kind.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will
820
make a little clearer what he is saying in the context of the Bill which he quoted as an example, where it would appear that the same opportunities have been available to those whom we represent as to those who are represented by right hon. and hon. Members in the rest of the House.
Mr. Neave: On 11th June we were discussing an Order which was primary legislation and which reflected industrial relations Bills passed by this House but did not provide the people of Northern Ireland with the same opportunities as we would have during the passing of a Bill. That was what I meant. We shall adopt an attitude of extreme watchfulness towards the instruments as they are published.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that there were further matters to discuss. We, too, would welcome a method of considering statutory rules and orders which are not subject to the procedure at Westminster through the Northern Ireland Committee. We are glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that Select Committees should include Northern Ireland services in their considerations.
We welcome the Order.
12.11 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I hope that the Secretary of State will understand if I do no more than record our satisfaction with the helpful points he made about the processing of legislation, because I hope that later my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State generously indicated, my right hon. Friend played a large and constructive part in putting forward suggestions for the betterment of processing Northern Ireland legislation through this House.
You, Mr. Speaker, will have heard in the past four years many complaints from this Bench about the inadequacies of the system of Orders in Council and the defects in the methods of handling such legislation. We are glad that we are moving into a period when more influence will be given to hon. Members, particularly those representing Northern Ireland. Although we do not suggest that what the Secretary of State said entirely satisfies our grievance—no doubt

821
we shall put forward further suggestions—we are thankful for the fairly substantial concessions he has made regarding the points of view we have put forward over the years.
Most of my working life was spent in the printing industry, where we were well aware that a certain phrase, sentence or paragraph was likely to be used over and over again. The type was not dismantled and redistributed over the type cases as happened in other respects. In case hon. Members think that I may be getting at the Secretary of State, I point out that possibly the greatest offenders are the people in Fleet Street, who nowadays presumably operate on a much more sophisticated level than I did when I was in the printing industry, but I still think that they pursue the same technique. Certain phrases seem to be dropped in as sub-headings or bits to fill out a column. "The political vacuum" is a notable phrase. Another is "The collapse of the Convention".
Let us consider the phrase "political vacuum". This gem is used by a variety of people for a variety of reasons. It is used by people who seek to give the impression that Northern Ireland is bereft of any form of government. It paints a picture of Northern Ireland being a part of the United Kingdom which has no one at the helm. It is nothing to the people who use the phrase that Cornwall and Kent appear to be able to muddle through without a local assembly. The impression given is that Northern Ireland is isolated from any form of democratic process and that the voice of its elected representatives is not heard, still less listened to, in the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. John Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Cornwall and other countries in this country the powers given to local government are much more extensive than the powers given to local government in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Molyneaux: If the hon. Member had been patient, he would have heard me deal with that matter, but I see no reason why I should not divert from what I was saying in order to reply to his question. The third point in the submissions which we have consistently made in this House and outside is that we de-
822
sire for Northern Ireland roughly the same form of local government as that enjoyed by all the other regions and areas of the United Kingdom. We hope that the Government will be persuaded. I do not suggest that they destroyed it. It was destroyed largely as a result of the miscalculations of a former Unionist Prime Minister, who said to me on one occasion "I will not be deterred or delayed in producing my scheme just because outside my door there is a queue of self-appointed advisers such as yourself". If I had got to the head of the queue and gained admission, I might have been able to save them from the disastrous errors which they made.
The phrase "political vacuum" is used, in another sense, by people who would settle for a form of devolution, a structure which would be almost without visible means of support. Their attitude is that something is better than nothing. They would happily embark on yet another experiment and blindly ignore all the lessons of the past and all the lessons taught by the collapse of previous such experiments.
I come to the other phrase, "the collapse of the Convention", I should say in fairness that the Secretary of State did not use it today. I think he said that the Convention had failed to produce a certain type of recommendation. The plain fact is that the Convention did not collapse. It completed the task it was given and it produced its report. Certainly it did not agree, but it was not asked to agree.
It is irresponsible to put into people's heads the notion that the Convention was some kind of government and that when it failed, as it is said it failed, that system of government was wiped out and only then did we return to direct rule, because, as you well know, Mr. Speaker—not that I shall ask you to express a view—direct rule has been with us for the past four years except for one short experimental and disastrous period. There is, therefore, nothing new about it. Since 1972, Northern Ireland has been governed as a part of the United Kingdom. It would be a soothing influence on the minds of the people of Northern Ireland if that fact could be placed squarely before them.
It would perhaps be fair if at this point I were to put into perspective the talks

823
between the Unionist Party and the SDLP. I feel that I have a duty to do what I can to put the facts straight. To date, the operation has been in the nature of a reconnaissance. I understand that roughly one stage of the exercise remains to be completed. When it has been completed, a judgment will be made on whether a basis exists for negotiations to begin, because those participating are not negotiating; they are engaged in an exploratory operation.
I concede that the negotiations at that point must involve a wider representation.
We must not encourage a false impression or lead our colleagues in this place to suppose that some dramatic development will just happen. The reconnaissance operation and the negotiations which may follow—the Secretary of State used the word "may" yesterday, and he will agree that there is a question-mark over the situation—are bound to be within the terms of the Convention deliberations, and the negotiations, if they begin, must be within those terms of reference.
I have little time for those in Ulster who tell use that we on this Bench should not co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in maintaining direct rule. They proclaim that they intend to end it, but do not say precisely how. Perhaps, if we are all patient, some day we shall be let into the secret and will learn what they propose to do. These critics are falling into the grave error of repudiating their British citizenship, and are even close to proclaiming the end of the Union itself.
The Unionists in 1912 did not corn-plain that they were then ruled by a foreign regime—they said the opposite. They said "We want to continue being governed in this way. We do not want any change. We certainly do not want any form of home rule which would endanger the Union." Therefore, to say now in 1976 that, because we have gone back roughly to the position of those days, they would prefer some kind of negotiated independence or some rather vague form of administration is to deny the Union and even to place a large question-mark over their right to call themselves Unionists.
824
We on this Bench have never suggested that the present system was without defects, but people have the evidence of their own eyes and ears of the steady improvements in the mechanism. We have advanced quite a long way along that road this morning. I do not pretend that those improvements are nearly sufficient to satisfy, for example, those who may have held office in the former Stormont Administration.
A former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland once said that the old system of Stormont provided what he called "close-contact government". One has to admit that, despite the very sincere and genuine efforts of the present Secretary of State and his Ministers, there is something in what has been said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), speaking for the Conservative Opposition, that that element is perhaps still missing. If, however, the price for a return to such close-contact government is unacceptable, as it was to the majority of those who served in the Northern Ireland Convention and as it is to those of us on this Bench, the sensible thing to do is to use all the processes open to us in this place to secure further progress in our just demands.
There have again been suggestions that we should pack up and leave this place. We are told this by various people at times in Northern Ireland. They say "Come home and leave them to it. That will show them." No doubt the Patronage Secretary might be greatly obliged if we were to take that attitude, because it would simplify his calculations to a great extent. That, however, was not the purpose for which we were elected—to put it more crudely, not the purpose that we are being paid for.
In our view, we are far more likely to serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland if we engage in the full processes of the machinery of this place. That is far more likely to serve the interests of Northern Ireland than if we were to engage in activities to obstruct the Secretary of State and his Ministers in carrying out the administration of affairs in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly said to those who talk about such obstruction that even if they were very successful they might make things difficult for the Secretary of State; they might to sonic extent gum up the works.

825
But that is the sum total of their potential achievement. They could not do what they say—bring down direct rule and return Stormont. They might make things difficult for the Secretary of State by illegal and other activities bordering on the illegal, but they could not, by that kind of action, bring back devolved government to Northern Ireland.
Today, we are making provision for the continuation not of direct rule but of government by the United Kingdom Parliament for another year. Beyond that, whether the period be long or short, temporary or permanent, the period ahead could be put to constructive use by all of us. I have given an indication—I hope that the Secretary of State accepts it—that it is our intention on this Bench to act in that context and to continue to act constructively here in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
We must also encourage people at home in Northern Ireland to adopt a rather more mature attitude to politics—for that matter, a more mature attitude to each other. Without giving offence one might suggest that there could perhaps be fewer instant statements. That might to some extent reduce the temperature. It might enable people to have a breathing space in which to collect their thoughts and form a balanced judgment.
While we would be the first to concede that healthy political discussion is to be welcomed—and I hasten to add that we on this Bench do not, because we are the elected representatives of Northern Ireland here, claim a monopoly of the formation of policies—it can do nothing but harm to encourage a whole range of non-elected persons to regard themselves as some kind of alternative government in Northern Ireland. Whatever people may desire or wish, the reality is that the responsibility rests upon this House, and particularly heavily on the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in it. Well-meaning attempts to involve those who are not responsible in that respect—who are not responsible to the electorate—would merely add to the confusion. In the final analysis, those responsible to the electorate must not be undermined.
I for my part can assure the Secretary of State and the House that we will not fail to do our duty. I must, however, add that that duty could be much more effectively performed if the Government and
826
Parliament could gradually move themselves into accepting the fact that Northern Ireland is under-represented in this House. If we had in this place the full representation to which we claim we are entitled—a claim that is becoming more and more accepted—the representation and the services which we try to give to the people of Northern Ireland would be all the more effective.
12.30 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: I would like to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about instant statements. It seems to be particularly apposite in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Since I have been in this House it has come home to me that one of the great strengths and weaknesses of this place is the fact that in the process of accountability Ministers are drawn before this assembly and expected to make instant statements. They are expected to make initiatives and bring forward new plans to deal with situations that may be thrown up at a moment's notice.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that there was a healthy instinct in British political parties to take account of pressing issues and substantial opponents. I agree that it is a healthy instinct, but there is also a fundamentally damaging aspect of that proposition, in so far as it can lead to this place constantly seeking new initiatives and ways forward, when what may well be needed is a period of status quo or calm—a period in which there is no new initiative.
I believe that the Secretary of State is absolutely right in saying that there is no scope or need for a major new initiative in Northern Ireland politics at the present time. Of course he will run the risk of being labelled as an Asquithian "wait-and-see" politician. But it may be that the situation in Northern Ireland is so complex and tense that a major new initiative could create more damage than good. What is called for here is a clear statement of the continuation of direct rule.
When the Northern Ireland Convention ended, many people took the view that this could have certain consequences for Northern Ireland politics, some of which have emerged since as anticipated, and others of which have not. When

827
the Convention ended, I assumed that people in this country would be placed in the front line and that the campaign of terror would be extended to this country. That has not happened—for a very good reason. The reign of terror that exists in Northern Ireland could not be extended here because the IRA saw that it would be counter-productive. That is because of the nature of the two societies.
In this country there is a vast volume of stable and moderate opinion which is capable of resisting attacks of terrorism. We saw this in the Birmingham bombings, where the net result was to produce a revulsion among ordinary people. In Northern Ireland the reverse would have been true. The creation of terrorism there, because of the smallness of the community, produces a counter-reaction, and counter-terrorist organisations spring up. It is in the nature and fabric of Northern Ireland politics that this happens, and this is all the more reason why difficult though it may be, the people of Northern Ireland should resist the temptation to create further para-military organisations outside the workings of the security forces in that country.
The other effect that I assumed would occur when the Convention ended was that politicians in Northern Ireland eventually would be driven to reconsider their position and ask basic questions about the sort of Government and society they wanted to see in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South touched on the conflicts of Northern Ireland in terms of what loyalty means in that country—whether it means the pure and simple loyalty to the Government of the United Kingdom that exists among people in Yorkshire and Cornwall, or something more than that. The important historical view of Northern Ireland's situation is that inevitably and ultimately there will be a devolved Government in that country. Historically, Northern Ireland has always caused trouble to the rest of Ireland. It has always sought some independent rôle, and its colonisation from this country merely accentuated that fact.
The prime concern of the people of Northern Ireland is towards the creation of some form of devolved Government,
828
and that is why I welcome the talks that are taking place between political parties in the North. I think that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems will come about through a system of devolved government.
The Secretary of State also said that if there is to be a system of devolved government in the North it has to be one that is acceptable to this House. This involves, as has been shown over and over again, some acceptance of power sharing. We cannot escape from that.
Within the context of devolved government, there is the matter of harmonisation of the law between the two countries. The Secretary of State mentioned homosexual and divorce law reform. The divorce laws in Northern Ireland date back to the mid-1930s but in Britain we have the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I am a lawyer and I recognise that the advent of that Act has certainly had a beneficial effect on the people of this country who have to go to court. In our courts, people are not faced with the same harrowing experiences as they were before. This is an area that could be considered seriously in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State mentioned the problem of Northern Ireland's industry and investment. Of course he is right to say that the problem of terror must be counter-productive in attracting investment to Northern Ireland. But we would be mistaken to take the view that the existence of the terror campaign itself actually brought about the failure of increased investment in Northern Ireland. That country has economic problems which are similar to those of the regions of this country—the North-East Region, for example, and Scotland in the past. While the existence of the reign of terror obviously does not encourage industrialists to go there, the publication of the magazine Fortnight can do nothing to encourage international companies to invest in Northern Ireland.
The other evening I switched on the television and saw the Secretary of State handing over what I can only describe as one of the ugliest aeroplanes ever built. It was produced at Short's and I understand it has a very good chance of being a real winner in international terms.
Mr. Powell: Not all winners are good lookers.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the Department of Commerce we have a new notice, which says "Ugly is good".
Mr. Watkinson: I gather from the Secretary of State's remarks that he anticipates that this aeroplane could be a winner, and provide substantial orders for the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland. I welcome that.
It is my privilege to serve on the Public Accounts Committee of this House. We have had officers from the Northern Ireland Office before us. They are treated in the same way as are officers of other Departments. As the Secretary of State has suggested, this is a process which should be extended if we are to encourage some form of positive direct rule over the course of the next year.
I wish to raise one matter that is not related to this debate, and which, since I shall be unable to be here later I shall be unable to discuss on the second Order. It relates to the problem of terrorism and Government in Northern Ireland. It is of the absolute essence that the Government's approach must be towards the creation and maintenance of a stable system in which the rule of law is respected. That, however, involves the acceptance of the view that criminals must be brought before the courts. That is why I have always firmly supported the principle that detention in that context cannot be tolerated—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I noted that the hon. Gentleman said that he would not be here for the next Order, but the rest of us will be. In the contribution that he is now making perhaps he will confine himself to the first Order.
Mr. Watkinson: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State raised the question of terror, and I wanted to talk briefly about that. It is necessary to maintain the existence of some adherence to the principle of the rule of law. The Secretary of State has been entirely consistent in his approach to this matter. But some of my hon. Friends have had their doubts about talks that have gone on in Northern Ireland between the Government and certain organisations. I refer in particular to the talks with the Provisional Sinn Fein. It is very difficult to maintain the principle of supporting the rule of law when one
830
talks with organisations that appear to have access to illegal bodies.
The approach throughout the application of this Order must be to try to take positive steps forward in the context of direct rule. This is not a period in which a major new initiative is called for. Instead, we must try to move forward by developing what we have. We do not need a fundamental reappraisal of the way in which we govern the Province at the present time.
12.43 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that there seems to be no disagreement in the House that we should proceed on the basis indicated by the Secretary of State, which is that in a period of direct rule we do not delude ourselves that rabbits can be pulled out of hats and that magic solutions can be produced for Northern Ireland.
We use the term "direct rule" in strange ways in its application to Northern Ireland. There is nothing odd or improper in what we call direct rule. That is simply the rule of a part of the United Kingdom by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not the best form of government for the United Kingdom, and there is ample scope and much desirability in having for Northern Ireland and for the other parts of the United Kingdom institutions of government which exercise power and responsibility on a more local and regional basis. The whole of the United Kingdom experiences direct rule, however, and there is nothing odd or improper about Northern Ireland being in that position. That position should be changed only when there is a clear basis for changing it in terms of a genuine and wide understanding in Northern Ireland.
By that same token, however, the period in which we have direct rule must not be a standstill period in all respects for the Province. I am pleased that the Secretary of State affirmed that this was not the Government's intention. The greatest mistake we could make in using direct rule would be to put various matters to one side to await some other form of government to deal with them. This House has the responsibility and it must exercise it and govern Northern Ireland. That applies to the industrial, commercial and social economic policies which must be pursued.

831
Northern Ireland Ministers have had to do a great deal on their own initiative with less recourse to this House that they themselves would have liked. The Secretary of State has rightly sought to find an answer to this problem. I am glad he has indicated that in a number of spheres the Government should no longer take the view that progress cannot be made because direct rule might shortly be ended.
I hope that, whatever views hon. Members take about a number of social issues, they will generally agree that we should now consider them. It is right that those who either favour or oppose changes in the law on divorce, homosexuality, abortion and other such issues should now agree that they should not be left out of account because of some possible future form of government for Northern Ireland. We should form a view in this House, and we should consider the situation in Northern Ireland and then come to conclusions. I am glad that the Secretary' of State sees no reason why we should not have the opportunity to do that.
I welcome also the right hon. Gentleman's desire that Select Committees should exercise a policy role for Northern Ireland, particularly in terms of the strange constitutional variety of nationalised industries which exists there. I am glad that he wants them embraced in a form in which they can be considered by Select Committees.
I have some reservations about the line adopted by the official Opposition about increasing the number of advisory bodies and the bodies which citizens feel will give them further representation on Northern Ireland matters. The danger—almost the curse—in Northern Ireland is that of representation without responsibility. I am a Liberal and I believe very strongly that as much power as possible should be left at local level. But power and responsibility must go together. The most dangerous situation is where the ability to pontificate, to demand and to assert, while claiming rights and powers, carries no responsibility for the consequences of that ability. It is for that reason that we talk about devolved government but we do not proceed until we have found a basis which, while giving power, imposes a responsibility in exercising that power.
832
There are dangers in allowing people in Northern Ireland to assume that they have a right and status which is not associated with a clear responsibility or with the prospect of being discharged by the electors if they do not exercise that responsibility. This leads to the vexed issue of Norther Ireland representation proper. Under direct rule that means representation in this House. The Secretary of State dealt with it at some length and he mentioned factors to which I think he attached a strange significance. First, he talked about the possibility of devolved government and the implications that it would have. But let us be clear about this. The Government are suggesting that if Scotland and Wales have extensive devolved government they will not lose any of the other representation—which is above a resonable quota—which they have in this House.
There are many hon. Members, certainly in my party, who will not support that aspect of the proposals and will want to see a general United Kingdom quota which gives the same level of representation to Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. They do not see, if I may use the words of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), any incompatibility between devolved government and the same quota of representation in this House. We would not, however, tolerate any part of the United Kingdom being forcibly under-represented.
I assume that the most that is likely to happen, if my ambitions are achieved and I defeat the Government in this respect, is that the representation of Scotland with an Assembly will be reduced to the level of England. That is all I ask for and all that Northern Ireland seeks for itself. Devolved Government cannot be seen by the Government as any barrier to that if they are prepared to contemplate over-representation with devolved government.
The Secretary of State then mentioned the position of the two communities in Northern Ireland and the problems which that presents in terms of Northern Ireland. A smaller number of Northern Ireland representatives in this House means that it is harder to embrace within that representation the full spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland. The smaller we keep the group of Northern

833
Ireland representatives, the less representative it can be. We have differing views on the electoral system which operates throughout the United Kingdom. The fact that it is not very good at ensuring representation from both communities in Northern Ireland cannot be laid at the door of those who want more representatives from the Province. The fact that the Government may choose to maintain a ludicrously unrepresentative system is not our fault, and it is not an excuse for reducing the number of representatives from Northern Ireland.
The present system results in gross misrepresentation in many parts of the United Kingdom. But we should not say that there should be fewer hon. Members from the South of England because the Conservatives and Liberals are under-represented there or fewer hon. Members from the South-East where the Labour Party is under-represented. The remedy is to change the system so that no part of the United Kingdom is under-represented.
I was glad that the Secretary of State did not repeat today what he has hinted at in the past—that the record of abstentionism and disapproval of Westminster in some quarters should be taken into account in considering representation. I hope he will drop that hint of an argument. There is no reason why either community in Northern Ireland should have visited upon it a collective punishment for the fact that some people in the past have refrained from attending the House and have argued that others should also refrain from attending.
It would totally illogical if the Government said that we had to wait until a form of devolved government had been established in Northern Ireland before changing the system of representation. I was glad that the hon. Member for Abingdon made clear that the delay which he was envisaging went only as far as Scottish and Welsh devolution. Even if we have to wait a very long time for devolved government in Northern Ireland, there is no need to wait that long for fair representation.
I hope that the period of direct rule will result in constructive political developments and fruitful discussions in Northern Ireland. The door to devolved government may appear to be closed, but
834
it can be opened if the broad mass of representatives of both communities put their shoulders to it. It will not open without that effort and a common support for a new form of devolved government.
In the meantime, Northern Ireland has to be governed as well as we can govern it. The ending of the anarchy which has prevailed in some parts of the Province, the restoration of the rule of law and the commercial and social development of Northern Ireland are the responsibilities for the time being of this Parliament. We must ensure that we are equipped to carry out these tasks and that Northern Ireland is made a better place for those who live there.
12.54 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Whatever our views on this Order, we must accept that it had to be introduced. At present there is no alternative to this House being in full control of the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the improvements announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, though perhaps for reasons different from those of other hon. Members. There is no Stormont, and it may be a considerable time—though I hope not—before we get devolved government in Northern Ireland. That is why I accept the progressive measures announced today to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are better governed in the meantime.
I suspect that some hon. Members from Northern Ireland will see these measures as a tentative step along the road to total integration. Their view might be that if we can introduce legislation here it might become acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, who will then think that there is no need for devolved government. I shall never accept that view. I do not believe that Northern Ireland can be governed on the same lines as other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is an island, and has no land communication with other regions in the United Kingdom. It also has different cultures and backgrounds, and a totally different history, all of which drive one to the inescapable conclusion that however much we try we cannot look to the total integration of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.

835
I agree with the improvements announced by the Secretary of State, but I hope that he will not listen to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—particularly the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—who say that total integration is the answer. It is not.
I may be regarded as a reactionary by hon. Members on the Government side of the House if I say that I did not go all the way with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He stressed the need to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that of other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not believe that the absence of abortion, homosexuality and divorce laws in Northern Ireland led to the present troubles.
Other legislation in force in the rest of the United Kingdom is far more important. For instance, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 does not apply to Northern Ireland. I should like to see that Act introduced in the Province tomorrow. It is a compassionate and humane measure and is far more important than the other legislation to which I have referred.
I agree with the Secretary of State that there are two views of justice in Northern Ireland—the majority view and the minority view. Throughout the 52 years of Unionist ascendancy government at Stormont it was believed, rightly or wrongly—some opinions were very wrong, others were justified—that the administration of justice meant the administration of Unionist justice. That is why there was such opposition to the police and security forces in Northern Ireland who were empowered to carry out that justice.
I believe that the community for which I claim to speak on certain occasions would have more faith in the administration of justice by this House than by any Unionist ascendancy government.
I hope that in future debates we shall be given the opportunity to express our views on the way in which justice has been administered in the past and how we think it should be administered in the future.
I know that there are different approaches to compensation in Northern Ireland. Some of the more Right-wing
836
Members of the Conservative Party would seek to have compensation paid in a discriminatory way to those who are suspected of having shown or voiced opposition to certain authorities in Northern Ireland. They take the view that they should not be given the same compensation rights as others. I have a specific case in mind, but undoubtedly we shall have the opportunity to discuss others when certain matters come before the House.
How is Northern Ireland to be administered in the meantime? I did not agree with the devolved Parliament that had power for 52 years, but certain aspects of it helped the whole electorate. The people of Northern Ireland had ready access to their own Parliament, their own Cabinet and their own Ministers. In the absence of those facilities, responsibility now lies with my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
Over the past few weeks especially, I do not think that the Opposition have been helpful in affording facilities to Northern Ireland Ministers to enable them to carry out their onerous responsibilities. I know how often they have had to fly to and from London. I know that last week one of my hon. Friends flew a record 4,000 miles, trying to be here for votes at the same time as he was trying to carry out his duties in Northern Ireland. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—had great experience of flying from Northern Ireland in a helicopter as a result of the close votes that were being held.
The Opposition cannot be hypocritical. If they want Northern Ireland to be governed from this House, they must afford whatever arrangements are possible through the usual channels to ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be readily accessible in Northern Ireland if and when they are needed. Past experience indicates that they are sometimes needed there 24 hours a day, every day.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman took great credit in Northern Ireland for advocating that a certain person should break his pair on one occasion? It was that that brought about the ructions.
Mr. Fitt: I am not responsible for Press stories. We all know what Press stories are in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made what I consider to be a helpful contribution this morning. I hope that note will be taken of it in Northern Ireland. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was appealing to all sections of the Northern Ireland community to try to get together to see whether it is possible to find some means of reaching agreement. I think he expressed hopes that the present talks will be successful without expressing any guarantee that that will be the outcome.
If that is his attitude in making an appeal to the majority Protestant community and the minority Catholic community to try to resolve their difficulties by getting together, it must be contrasted with the attitude of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Only last week or the week before, an article appeared in the Protestant Telegraph, of which I understand the hon. Gentleman is the editor, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the former Prime Minister, was roundly castigated for having awarded an OBE to Mike Yarwood. That attitude was taken not because Mike Yarwood was not entitled to it but because my right hon. Friend awarded the honour to the arch-Fenian Mike Yarwood. The hon. Gentleman took the view that a Catholic should not have received an OBE. To say the least, I do not think that that is the best possible way to better community relations in Northern Ireland. Clearly people speak with two voices in this House and in Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend said, we want a period of quiet in Northern Ireland—a period in which spokesmen—they are no longer elected representatives—can discuss the differences that divide us and ascertain whether it is possible to make recommendations to the Westminster Government to bring back devolved government to Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, we have the hon. Member for Antrim, North telling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "We do not agree with your security forces. We think they are inefficient. We do not think they are capable of doing the job that you say they are capable
838
of doing. Therefore, we shall create a security force of our own." Fortunately that proposal fell flat on its face. It is to the credit of the Northern Ireland people that they did not fall for that one.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) was advocating the return of powers to local authorities. I should be bitterly opposed to that proposition. Throughout the whole of the Unionist ascendancy in Northern Ireland there was complete, total and bitter opposition to the way that local authorities were being run. On the involvement of the Westminster Government in the affairs of Northern Ireland, many inquiries were set up. Their reports are on record and are to be found in the Vote Office. They are so well known that it is not necessary for me to be armed with them. They prove beyond any possible doubt that certain local authorities in Northern Ireland were guilty of the most vicious form of discrimination.
It was because of the activities of those authorities that the Conservative Government and this Government were fully in agreement when it was decided to limit the powers of the authorities. The proposition that there should be an increase in the number of Northern Ireland seats at Westminster and a return of powers to local authorities in Northern Ireland is tantamount to recreating a Unionist ascendancy. We know what percentage of the population the majority community represents, and we know the history of the local authorities. To return powers to the authorities would be to take a step back. It would defeat every effort that successive Governments have made from 1969 onwards to try to reform society in Northern Ireland and to make it more democratic.
Mr. Molyneaux: Without going into the rather sterile and negative argument about who discriminated against whom in the past—in fact, it was an act that was carried out in both directions—does the hon. Gentleman accept that when I was replying to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) I was not indicating, implying, suggesting or advocating a return of powers to existing local authorities? I was advocating, as I have done previously, the reconstruction of local government, so as to give the people

839
a real say in the running of their affairs, as they have on this side of the water.
Mr. Fitt: Whatever way I interpreted the argument was due to the remarks of my hon. Friend.
Certain local authorities abused their powers throughout the 52 years. In no circumstances would I advocate that housing powers be given back to local authorities in Northern Ireland, whether to the Catholic housing authority of Newry or the Protestant housing authority of Portadown. For better or worse, we have created the Housing Executive, and we have a points system. The Housing Executive has to overcome many obstacles, but over the years I believe that it will be accepted as an impartial housing authority, acting in the interests of all the homeless.
I have criticised the Housing Executive on some occasions, and I shall continue to do so when I consider that it is being inefficient in creating homes, but, having served on local authorities in Northern Ireland, I recognise that the removal of powers that local authorities formerly had has led to a falling-off in enthusiasm. People are not interested in attending meetings of local authorities. The best type of people are not attracted. That is far from saying that powers should be given back to local authorities on the basis that existed prior to the reform of local government.
At present there are 12 right hon. and hon. Members representing Irish constituencies. I do not believe that if we had in the House 16, 20, 30, 50 or 100 Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland the Province would be better governed. We have to have a Government in Northern Ireland composed of the majority community and the minority community. The people will have to overcome their fears and suspicions and recognise that the majority community cannot live without the support of the minority community and that the minority community cannot live without the support of the majority community. This problem has been created by history, and there are many reasons why it cannot be solved in the short term.
There are members of my party and members of the official Unionist party including an Orangeman who organises
840
parades—this may come ill from me today—who are generally interested in trying to create political institutions in Northern Ireland to help the whole community. Perhaps those talks will not be successful, but every Northern Ireland Member should do what he can to try to ensure success for those talks.
My ideas contrast vividly with those of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who specifically said that he did not want these talks to be successful and that he did not want an agreement to emerge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have no hesitation in stating that again today, having said it clearly in Northern Ireland. He cannot say one thing over there and another here, although he has many times attempted to do so.
The only future that the hon. Gentleman sees for Northern Ireland is with the majority party—the UUU Party. I am beginning to wonder how many Us there should be. The first one, standing for "United", should be dropped if there is a coalition in the House giving credit and support to my right hon. Friend when he says that he wants to create devolved government in Northern Ireland, because the Ulster Unionists are all speaking with different voices.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North does not want devolved government. He is so opposed to it that he has told his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that he will put him out at the next election because he belongs to a party that favours devolved government. Hon. Members are not fools, neither are the people of Northern Ireland. When real attitudes become known, the Northern Ireland people will be able to identify those who want to rebuild Northern Irish society, who want to end the violence at all costs, and are prepared to compromise and concede the doctrinaire positions that they have held in the past. Those people will receive the support of the community.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South said that at present there are local authority representatives in Northern Ireland and 12 Members of Parliament sitting in this House, and that they are the only elected representatives. I agree that in the past there seemed to be some form of isolation between the various groups in Northern Ireland that had a social conscience. There are now community

841
groups, which do not represent anyone in any given district. If they do, it is at the point of a gun. That applies both to the minority community and the majority community. Both have been engaged in a campaign of intimidation. When they have effectively silenced the people—which is easy to anyone with a gun in his hand—they make representations to the Northern Ireland Office and other agencies claiming to represent certain areas and a certain number of people. It is dangerous to allow that trend to continue. Before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State engages in discussions with people of this type, the opinion of the Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies should be sought.
If the remarks that I have just made are reported in the Press in Northern Ireland tomorrow, there will be a host of letters to all the local newspapers saying that the elected representatives are afraid of the community groups, that we have neglected community groups in the past and that they are the people who are closely identified with the needs of the areas. We have heard all that before.
There are sincere and dedicated community workers who can readily be identified, but there are others in that position only because they have been able to wreak fear, havoc, intimidation and terrorism in certain areas. Many people who have their names on the community list have been defeated in past elections to the House, to local authorities and to the previous Stormont Parliament. At least we are entitled to question their motivation. Why, after being severely defeated at the polls, do they suddenly become community workers? I warn my right hon. Friend to consider carefully whom he is speaking to in Northern Ireland.
The talks that are now taking place in Northern Ireland between the SDLP and the official Unionist Party have given some little hope to the electorate. If the talks are unsuccessful they will prove that the official Unionist Party has at last found the courage to tell some of its coalition partners who are identified as wreckers that the official Unionist Party is a long-established political party, with its own political point of view.
842
The members of the official Unionist Party may not agree with all the views of their coalition partners. They should reserve to themselves the right to speak as a political party representing a political viewpoint. We must not allow political parties to be dominated and intimidated by personalities. I need not say to which personalities I refer. Some are not elected, and others are. We had not heard of some of them until the Convention elections last year. Now they would seem to arrogate to themselves the position of holders of the whole conscience of the Northern Ireland people. I believe that the talks are necessary. Perhaps they will not be a success initially, but at least there is this beginning of an attempt to talk to each other after so many years of avoiding each other, years of fear and suspicion of each other's viewpoints.
It is dangerous to be optimistic in Northern Ireland; the position is always so unpredictable. I hope that in the talks that are taking place, my right hon. Friend, although he is not directly involved, will say that the resolution of the Northern Ireland problem is a matter for both communities in Northern Ireland and that any efforts that they may be making to erase fears and to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland will have his support. I hope that that support will be found to be necessary in the next 12 months and that at the end of that period, if not before, we shall have devolved government in Northern Ireland.
1.21 p.m.
Mr. John Dunlop: I had many things to say this morning, but since listening to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) I am compelled to say other things. That is generally the case. Once again, we have been treated to the usual bandwagon catalogue of 50 years of misrule and maladministration and 50 years discrimination. I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman will soon believe those things if he keeps on saying them as often as he does. Possibly the Hansard reporters could go away for a cup of tea in the middle of his speech and then pick it up verbatim from his last speech.
We are talking today about direct rule and its extension to Northern Ireland. I

843
agree for once with something that the hon. Member for Belfast, West said but which is contrary to what the Secretary of State said some time ago: that the people of Northern Ireland welcomed direct rule and that all parts of the community were satisfied with it. I do not believe that is so. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West that what we need as soon as possible in Northern Ireland is a return to devolved government.
The local government situation has been mentioned. At the moment it is nothing short of farcical. Four large area boards have been created with appointed members who have no elective responsibility. While we have been pressing for a return to meaningful local government, we are not asking for a return to the old system of local councils and urban councils weighted according to the kind of people who serve on them. What we want is a meaningful local government which will be responsible to the local population.
The present situation is farcical. Some time ago a constituent of mine approached me with a drainage problem. Instead of going to his own local councillor, as he would have done in former days, he came to me, because I am the only elected representative who can speak on his behalf to the Ministries. I had to contact a Minister based in Whitehall in order to get the man's drain cleared. In the old days, when there was local government and a responsible engineer, one could lift the telephone and eat the head off the engineer and tell him to clear the drain. Now we have to go through this other ridiculous process. There is a great need for a return to meaningful elected local government with elective responsibility.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned power-sharing once again. We had a wonderful example of this in Magharafelt District Council, where there is an even balance of Republicans and Unionists. The chairman is an SDLP man. There was a sort of gentleman's agreement when the council was elected that the chairmanship would alternate between the chairman and the vice-chairman. For three years now the chairman of the council, Mr. Paddy Herron, has elected himself by his own
844
casting vote. This is a prime example of power-sharing. It is a fine example of how the SDLP carries out power-sharing.
We have had 50 years of this so-called maladministration and discrimination. It has been brought to an end. I notice in the Official Report of the Secretary of State's speech last year that he mentioned this bold experiment between "two communities"—the setting-up of the Northern Ireland Executive. I disagree with the expression "two communities". There is only one community in Northern Ireland, one community of people. They may have divergent political views, but there is only one community.
I feel that the continued description of "two communities" does nothing but polarise the situation and exacerbate the feeling between what may be two political communities. I am inclined to quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) said on one occasion: that the crucial point is not the altar at which a man worships but the nation to which he belongs. That is, indeed, the problem in Northern Ireland. No Unionist has said that he will not have Catholics in government. What we have said, and what we still say, is that we will not have Republicans in government because, as Unionists, we believe in the union of Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. We believe in the United Kingdom and the Six Counties of Northern Ireland under Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore, we resist any suggestion that we should have Republicans in government, no matter what their religious belief may be.
The Executive which failed so dramatically over a year ago was the most peculiar set-up that ever appeared in any democratic country. We had four key Ministries in that Administration. There was the deputy leadership beld by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who has now left the Chamber. That was tantamount to being Deputy-Prime Minister in this House. There was the Portfolio of Commerce. There was the Department of Housing and Local Government, and there was the Department of Health and Social Security. Those four key Ministries, which ran the country, were given over to members of a political party who gained less than 22 per cent. of the local vote.

845
How anyone can call that democracy is more than I can understand. That was democracy stood on its head.
In this Parliament we have a Government who gained 39 per cent. of the total vote of the country and they are running this country. Time and again in Northern Ireland the people have gone to the polls and have returned Members to Parliament with anything from 52 per cent. to 56 per cent. of the vote. Yet that verdict of the ballot box has been continually disregarded and thrust to one side, with an insistence upon a form of government which is totally undemocratic and unreal.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about a single-party Government running the country for 50 years. No doubt he is aware that there is a Government running Sweden today which has been in office for 42 years—a single-party Government, and a Socialist Government at that. There is no dissident minority there clamouring for places in the Government and perhaps backing up their claim by militant armed activity, with bombings, burnings and shootings. The minority in Sweden accepts its position as a minority, and the majority rules.
One cannot help but ask what the essential difference is between majority rule in Rhodesia and majority rule in Northern Ireland. The Government here fiercely insist on majority rule in Rhodesia, backing up their policy with intense political and economic pressure, and, allied to it, the not inconsiderable diplomatic pressure of the United States through the person of Dr. Kissinger. They insist on democratic majority rule in Rhodesia, yet just as fiercely they withhold it from the people of Northern Ireland.
There is a minority in Northern Ireland, but there are minorities in other countries. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that it was a single island and the Six Counties were in that island. But that makes no sense whatever. The Isle of Wight is separated from the mainland of England by the Solent, and the Channel Islands are further from England than they are from France, yet all are part of the United Kingdom. It is a stupid and unrealistic idea that the strip of water between Northern Ireland and Scotland, which has been swum across, somehow means that Northern Ireland should
846
be treated as unique and that the minority should be treated as a unique minority. We cannot understand it.
The same standards of democracy as obtain in this House and Parliament, the Mother of all Parliaments, should be applied to Northern Ireland, and the minority there should be willing to accept whatever form of government is brought about by the majority vote of the people, being content to live under a form of British Government adopting and applying British standards, which are the best in the world.
That is why the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland is determined to stay in that position. People have often blamed the politicians of Northern Ireland for the stance of the people. On the contrary. The Unionist people of Northern Ireland are loyal to the Throne, to Her Majesty the Queen and to the constitution of the United Kingdom. That is their instinct. It is part of their nature. I have gone into a little humble home in the mountains of Tyrone, a home where there is not much evidence of this world's goods, yet I have seen in pride of place on the main wall of the living room a picture of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, surrounded by expressions of loyalty to the Queen and the Throne.
That instinct will never be eliminated from the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. No political party and no legislation will eliminate that feeling, that instinct, which is part of their nature and which leads them to wish to stay British at any cost.
At Question Time on 29th April, when he was asked about direct rule, the Secretary of State spoke of keeping the people informed, referring to
"additional facilities for keeping Members and the public informed."—[Official Report, 29th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 541.]
One aspect of his many contacts on which we have sought more information is his contacts and conversations with Provisional Sinn Fein. This has been emphasised also from the official Opposition Front Bench, and it has been mentioned many times.
We cannot understand why the only elected representatives of over 1 million people in Northern Ireland are not informed of talks which the Secretary of

847
State has with Provisional Sinn Fein. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman accorded to that organisation the status of political party and declared it to be legal. Yet when the opportunity arose, as it has done many times, for these people to put themselves before the electorate, to accept and to align themselves with the verdict of the people through the ballot box, they refused to do so. They have never come out to face the people whom they claim to represent. They would rather rely on the politics of the bomb, the bullet and the fire. That seems to be their policy, for they have consistently refused to face the verdict of the people.
When Mrs. Maire Drumm and Kevin Agnew, among others, stand on a public platform and hurl defiance at the British Government and British authority in Northern Ireland, preaching sedition in the open, inciting people to violence—which is an offence nowadays—no action is taken against them. We have heard the bloodcurdling threats of Mrs. Drumm and Kevin Agnew that they will send every British soldier back to Britain in a box, and one is reminded of the threat of Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations when he said "We will bury you." Perhaps there is some affinity of political outlook between them.
We all look for and desire the return of meaningful devolved government in Northern Ireland. The Convention Report presented to Her Majesty's Government, I make so bold as to say, was a realistic and factual document, giving the most generous terms of participation in legislation and government to be found in any administration in the British Commonwealth or, indeed, in the whole of the civilised Western world. It gave an opportunity for the minority to have a meaningful part in the running of the country. But that document has been largely rejected by the British Government. Could it be that the Government had made up their mind to reject it?
Once again, the verdict of the ballot box has been rejected, and I believe that an opportunity should be given to the people of Northern Ireland once more to record their decision and their desire through the ballot box. This Government and Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, should accept the verdict of
848
the ballot box, a verdict showing that the two-thirds majority of people Northern Ireland desire meaningful and democratic government according to British standards. It is our hope and desire that this opportunity will soon be accorded.
1.37 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not take up in detail the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), save to comment upon what he said about Northern Ireland's strong desire to remain within the United Kingdom.
I believe that today's debate has been of great importance for the future of Northern reland. In my view, the Secretary of State's statement marks what one might dare to call a turning point in the thinking of the Westminster Government—I use that term because I do not wish to be partisan in what I say—about the future government of Northern Ireland.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's statements about the way in which legislation might be handled in the future were not only interesting but revolutionary—dare I say? How many of us, indeed, would welcome the thought that legislation in this place might go to a Committee before coming to the Floor of the House and being debated in the form of a Bill? I can think of at least one group of Members in a Select Committee who feel that, if they had a chance to look at some of the legislation which the Government presented to Parliament, that legislation would have been better thought out and probably more effective when it became the law of the land. In my view, that suggestion, so far as it applies to Northern Ireland, must be regarded as a major step forward, which should guarantee a greater measure of agreement and, therefore, of effectiveness in legislation when it ultimately comes into force.
I was greatly interested also in the Secretary of State's suggestion that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries might look at some of the industries in Northern Ireland. As a member of that Select Committee, I shall have something more to say about that at the end of my speech.

849
The final matter that I take up from the Secretary of State's speech concerns his new thinking about the represeentation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, and I appreciate some of his doubts, but I cannot see how anybody can believe that a greater representation of the people of Northern Ireland in the Chamber can be anything but helpful to the cause of Northern Ireland. The more voices from Northern Ireland that can be heard, the clearer will be the understanding of the problems of the parts of Northern Ireland. Also, any hon. Member faced with the task of representing too many constituents is likely to find that task beyond his physical capacity. Therefore, to have more Members can only be helpful to the individual in Northern Ireland. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West found something sinister in that suggestion. Indeed it was no more than a suggestion, because the Secretary of State did not say when the increase was proposed or whether there would be a Boundary Commission to examine the matter.
But if direct elections to a European Parliament take place, no doubt Northern Ireland will have its representation. It would be slightly invidious if a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland were sent to Europe while Northern Ireland and its people were not properly represented here. I hope that that paradoxical situation will not be allowed to occur. I take great heart from what the Secretary of State said.
I am somewhat timorous about saying too much about the political situation. If we talk of the 50 years of Northern Ireland Stormont Parliament in a pejorative way, should we not also add that those years were years of neglect of Northern Ireland by the Westminster Parliament? Should we not in future see that that situation is never again allowed to exist and that there is a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whose voice will be heard in the United Kingdom Government? And should not that Secretary of State speak for all Northern Ireland, so that no one in the Province will feel forgotten, discriminted against or neglected? I pay tribute to the present Secretary of State, because he has a new grasp of Northern
850
Ireland, which makes me feel slightly optimistic about the future. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said about being cautious about optimism, because situations change so quickly, yet I cannot help feeling optimistic and I welcome what the Secretary of State said.
I turn now to the economic situation. The Secretary of State touched upon the subject in his speech. The economic strategy for the Province is close to the Government's heart at present and the Secretary of State said that there will soon be a statement about the Government's thinking.
I was particularly struck when the Secretary of State said that he felt that any survey of the economy of Northern Ireland should seek to find a way of seeing that it is not totally reliant on old industries. Even if one wished to endorse that, it would be easier said than done, with the Province facing 50,000 or more unemployed. That is one of the highest rates, if not the highest rate, of unemployment in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to see how any new industry could pick up that unemployed mass of people in the short term. For some time to come, the existing industrial scene will have to have within it two salient features—the shipyard and the aircraft company.
I do not wish to encroach on the constituency of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), but I have something to say about these industries because I was on the Standing Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and the matter came up then, as it will on Report. A few months ago I was privileged to go round Harland and Wolff's shipyard and I met the chairman, Sir Brian Morton, and the managing director, Mr. Punt. They told me that about 9,000 people are employed in the yard. They said that for every person employed in that yard, three others are employed in the Province on sub-contract work connected with the yard. There are, therefore, 27,000 people in the Province who are employed in work connected with Harland and Wolff.
One must wonder about the Government's approach to the shipyard and its future. A number of stories have appeared in national newspapers about this being Harland and Wolff's last chance. There has been speculation about

851
whether the Government will give the company more money, and rumours that the present money is running out more quickly than expected. One must wonder about the Government's intentions for the yard and whether they are convinced that it will be best to leave it in its present individual status, outside what looks like becoming British Shipbuilders. If they do leave it out, will the yard be forgotten when orders come into the United Kingdom? I make that point not because I am attempting to drag Harland and Wolff into the organisation but because I believe that it is in the interests of the economy of Northern Ireland and of its future employment situation. It would not be rational to allow the company to go bust and be forgotten.
The SD330, which has been referred to, may not be the prettiest of our aircraft but it is remarkable that its first customer is an American firm The workers at Short Brothers and Harland can throw out their chests with pride, and the company deserves a pat on the back for success with that aircraft.
When I worked for Short Brothers and Harland in the 1950s I remember a conversation about the future of the company and the economy of Northern Ireland. The then chairman, Sir Matthew Slattery, said that one of the problems was that when Northern Ireland sold its goods it had to carry heavy transport costs which no other region in the United Kingdom had to bear. He said that the two products which Northern Ireland could most successfully sell were ships and aircraft, because no transport costs are involved. With every other product one had to consider the additional transport cost, which would push up the price to the consumer. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) stressed the importance of transport links between the Province and the mainland in a speech some time ago. More emphasis should be given to that problem.
In planning the economy of Northern Ireland. I think we should ask whether we are thinking of a purely provincial economy—if that could be viable, and I am not sure that it could—whether we should be thinking of it as part of the economy of the island of Ireland as a whole. I am not sure that that makes much sense, but it make more sense than
852
thinking of it in provincial terms or whether we should plan the economy of Northern Ireland within a United Kingdom context. That brings me back to the situation of Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland being left outside the new groupings. I appeal to the Minister to share his thoughts with us on those questions.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I should very much like to share my thoughts, but the Secretary of State will be winding up the debate.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for the guidance of the Minister.
I then go on to the point that the Secretary of State made—namely, that he thought that there might be quite a lot to be said for the nationalised industries in Northern Ireland coming within the ægis of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. If, as I understand Harland and Wolff is the property of the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland, does the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries at Westminster have any right to demand from the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland that it should be able to investigate the affairs of Harland and Wolff or, for that matter, Short Brothers and Harland?
My second question is, how does the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland tie in with the Department of Industry or the Department of Trade in Whitehall? I have never been quite able to work out the relationship between the Ministry of Commerce and the Westminster Ministries. I am not sure about the financing arrangements which control how much aid the Ministry can give to individual companies, or whether, for instance, the Ministry of Commerce could invoke the Industry Act, or whether a special order is required for that to happen. I am not sure how much liaison there is between the Whitehall Ministries and that Ministry in Northern Ireland.
I shall stay on that point in concluding my remarks. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the organs of industrial regeneration—which the present Government so often like to tell us about, including the National Enterprise Board, and so on—extend to Northern Ireland in such a way that they can be made operable? I think I am right in saying that if Short

853
Brothers and Harland wants to develop a new project it can still use the Civil Aviation Act 1949 to raise finances.
But what of Harland and Wolff? If it sought money for research and development, from where would it seek it? If it is the Ministry of Commerce is there a limitation on the amount, or would the Ministry of Commerce, in turn, ask the Department of Industry for assistance?
Finally—and I have already touched on the question of unemployment—as one who has believed in the Keynesian concept of public spending at times of high unemployment, although that may now be totally unfashionable and, indeed, archaic in some senses, I suppose that one must be struck by the thought that there are so many people unemployed in the Province when there is so much to be done, if only in terms of public buildings and works. Everyone is aware that there is far too much bad housing in Belfast—housing that desperately needs to be cleared away, even though much is being cleared away. At a time when the Government are faced with the problem of cutting public expenditure, is there still not a way by which some form of public works programme can be devised to mop up some of the unemployment, thus making the Province and some of its cities better places than they have been, so that when the recession passes those who are now drawing unemployment benefit will have played a part in making the Province altogether a better and more pleasant place to be in than it is at present?
1.54 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: I think that most of us will appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He spoke very much along the same vein of thought as occupies my mind.
I find today's legislation, if one can call it legislation, a sad milestone. It is recording our inability to make progress as to how Ulster may be best governed. I think that we must realistically recognise today that, while we now have no alternative but to continue what is rather inaptly called direct rule, it is not a system of government that will bring back law and order to Northern Ireland, it will not end the conflict that exists within Northern Ireland, and it will not
854
create the proper basis for economic expansion.
We have had this system of government for some four and a half years, apart from one brief interlude. If one takes a cold assessment of the present situation, one finds that it is quite frightening. The law and order situation is as bad as, if not worse than, it has been for a very long time. One of the tests of the Government fails in Northern Ireland because they cannot truly say that they maintain the rule of law in every part of the Province—and they are a very long way from doing so. Indeed, as they approach law and order they have to indulge in diplomacy in expressing themselves. Sometimes we are given very strong declarations that we are working towards the primacy of the police—a very right and laudable objective—but, if pressure is launched on the police and quite a number of police die, we then start to look at the language that has been used, and it is modified.
However, what concerns me most of all is the employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. We have had some pretty bad times in Northern reland. I can remember them as a young boy. The 'thirties hit Ulster just as badly as they hit any part of the United Kingdom, perhaps worse; yet I can see the same spectre arising today. We have already had our attention drawn to the importance of industries such as Harland and Wolff, which is of massive importance to the local social and economic community. If anything happens there, the repercussions are widespread. Of course, that happens in other parts of the kingdom when old industries have to face the changing needs of the world markets. However, in Northern Ireland I think it has already been admitted today that the chances of attracting new industries are very remote. Very few people will invest in Northern Ireland as long as its future is one of lawlessness and political and constitutional instability. Even Ulstermen are very reluctant today to invest heavily in the future of Northern Ireland.
The facts of life cannot be ignored. What we must try to do this afternoon as we debate this problem is to realise that what, has been put forward is essentially interim. It would be entirely wrong if we were to feel that this sort of Government in Northern Ireland could

855
continue indefinitely. We are renewing it today for one year. However, let us recognise that we have a duty to try to keep that period as short as possible.
I listened with some interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who did not see any failure in the Ulster Convention. I thought that it was a most disappointing failure, because the people of Northern Ireland were given a privileged opportunity to advise the Government and this Parliament as to how they saw an end to the conflict in Ulster and how the new institutions of government worked out. Unhappily, we did not succeed in bringing to this Parliament proposals that would have resulted in devolution and some hope of ending the conflict.
Perhaps the Secretary of State is right to say that it is better to forget about the Convention. Certainly I agree with him that we should not have a deadline of that sort hanging around our necks when dealing with such a difficult problem. However, if one lets that sort of mechanism fail or lapse, how does one continue to involve the people of Northern Ireland in working out an agreement that can lead to devolved institutions?
I do not think that the 1973 Act, which is still on the statute book, provides us with any great opportunity to work out devolution. If we are to be excluded from the general examination of devolution in United Kingdom terms, how does the Secretary of State, after the Convention legislation elapses, see this process continuing in Northern Ireland? It is too large a burden for 12 Members representing the Province in this Parliament to undertake. While we may not see an opportunity now for a fresh initiative, I hope that the people of the Province of Northern Ireland will know that it is the Government's major priority to seek an initiative at the earliest possible time that will lead to a satisfactory form of devolution. Most people in Northern Ireland cannot see any way forward which does not include worthwhile devolution.
That raises some awkward points in the interim period. How are we to deal with Harland and Wolff and with Short Bros. if we recognise that sooner or later—and preferably sooner—there must
856
be a worthwhile measure of devolution? The viability or otherwise of Harland and Wolff will be important for those charged with the administration of Northern Ireland in Northern Irish terms.
I doubt whether anybody in this Parliament would disagree with the argument that, whatever happens to the British shipbuilding industry, we can safely conclude that it will not be as large as it is at present. What is to be the basis for rationalising the British shipbuilding industry? Will it provide for such special situations as Northern Ireland, where the industry has a tremendous social importance, assuming that one can discharge that social obligation within reasonable terms of economic viability?
Knowing the great need for devolution, I should be reluctant to see Harland and Wolff dealt with in such a way that it would be beyond the decision-taking process in Northern Ireland. Yet I am anxious and nervous that in the interim period many things could happen to Harland and Wolff which in the long-term might be damaging. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Newbury, who assumed that it would not be denied sufficient research facilities. That is vital if we are to maintain the hope of industry in Belfast so that in turn it can maintain confidence outside. That argument can also be used in relation to Short Bros.
I wish to refer to social legislation. We must look at some of these contentious proposals on the assumption that one day devolution will take place. I believe that much social legislation in Northern Ireland is way behind community needs. I wonder what right we in this Parliament have to try to make up that leeway. When I stood before the electorate, I did not say that I was coming to this Parliament to support or oppose changes in the law on homosexuality, nor did I say that I envisaged a modernisation of the divorce laws. It has been obvious to me this afternoon, when some of these matters were mentioned on both sides of the House, that there is already a serious conflict of opinion about whether we should handle such controversial issues. It is easy to say that of such emotive matters as divorce. The same situation could arise once we begin to tackle the administrative system of Northern Ireland in matters such as health, welfare and education.

857
The Secretary of State said that we shall shortly receive a consultative document on the reorganisation of education. No doubt we, as Members of Parliament, and other interested people will be very concerned about the contents of that document. We shall appreciate and value an opportunity to convey our views to the Government—but we can do nothing more than convey our views. We cannot convey them with any sense of having a mandate, to do so. It worries me that massive changes could take place in our education structure or in our hospital services that will not reflect accurately the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland, who for years have had an opportunity to say in what way they would like to see those services developed. This might be a subject on which a devolved Parliament and Government would feel that changes could be brought about within a month of their coming into being. It is a difficult matter, but we cannot continue to let it drift.
We need to hasten the process of tackling difficulties that lie in the way of achieving agreed institutions of government. We should not rush too speedily into issues on which there is no clear mandate or test of opinion in Northern Ireland. If that were to happen, it would increase pressures that already exist to see an end to the Union. There is no elected representative on this side of the House who wants to see the integrity of the United Kingdom in any way impaired. We would be misleading the House if we were not to say that, apart from the IRA pressures, there are also pressures from what would normally be regarded as a willingness in the community to think in terms of a changed relationship with the rest of the kingdom. In my opinion, that feeling is growing because of the general dissatisfaction with the way in which the Province is being governed across a whole area of activity.
I am not criticising the Secretary of State or his Ministers. It is the system that has created this situation. People are unhappy about law and order and economic decisions. Pressures arise out of a faulty system to the disadvantage of the need to maintain the Union.
Undoubtedly much more will be said later on the subject of law and order, but
858
today's Order is not without its importance to that very important need. I personally believe that the most effective way to re-establish the primacy of the police in effective enforcement of the law is to act through agreed institutions of government in such a way that we rob the terrorist of achieving the ends of his violence. That is imperative.
This is an interim Order, as the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of the United Kingdom as a whole realise. Let us all realise that we have a specific duty to see that an initiative is taken to bring about a more permanent form of government as soon as possible.
2.10 p.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: When we look at the present situation in Northern Ireland, with a murder a day, where bombs are a regular feature of life, where intimidation is rife and where the terrorists are many, and then we listen to the Secretary of State proclaiming the successes of the security forces in terms of those who are charged and imprisoned, we have to tell him that such proclamations do not cut much ice with ordinary people in Northern Ireland—certainly they do not with me.
The Secretary of State forgets that these crimes are the result of Government failure. They are the end result of failed policies. They are nothing of which to be proud. If this House in years past had pursued reasonable policies, these crimes would not be committed today and the successes that the right hon. Gentleman lauds would not be a necessary part of our life. The crimes that are solved are simply like putting vaseline on a boil. They ignore the root cause of the problem. Until we consider seriously the root cause, the results that have sprung from it will continue and we shall have more and more excuses, no matter how they are masked, in the days to come.
In the course of our debate last year, the Secretary of State drew attention, not for the first time and certainly not for the last, to the fact that the administration of law and order was in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman should know that the people of Northern Ireland do not believe that those hands have been effective in the administration of law and order over the years.

859
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) said that a vast number of moderate people in this country were prepared to assist the police and that therefore the terrorist could not succeed. I remind him that there are a vast number of moderate and reasonable men and women in Northern Ireland, but that when they assist the police their fear is that they will get a bomb or a knee-capping and that, if they do it a second time or in the wrong area, the bullet will not be in the knee but 3 feet higher. If the ordinary moderate men and women in this country were confronted with the same choice, they would behave precisely as many of the moderate and reasonable decent people in Northern Ireland behave. They would be very happy to keep their mouths shut.
It is no defence of the people of this country, who are free from terror and who can speak in safety, to say that the people of Northern Ireland should do the same. The people of Northern Ireland cannot do the same. The people of Northern Ireland pay with their lives, their liberty and their limbs, and with the lives of their children and friends, if they are prepared to stand up against the terrorists.
I say that the people of Northern Ireland have no confidence in the hands that look after their security. They have no confidence in them, because they believe that those hands belong to a Government who have neither the will no the moral courage to win in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew attention to this when he said that there was a good case for laws in Northern Ireland being different in some respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I go along with him in that view. I believe that the laws of Northern Ireland in respect of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order can and should be different, until such time as law and order are restored and the terrorist is defeated.
We should never forget—the people of Northern Ireland never have forgotten—that it was this House which tore down the former compromise that existed from 1920. It was this House which, by its foolishness or its evil—and I know which of the descriptions is used in Northern Ireland—created the conditions that
860
allowed the terrorists to flourish. It was this House that surrendered, not us. I believe that this House, having made a mistake, will never have the guts to rectify its mistake in any meaningful way until it is forced to do so by events in Ulster.
These events have grown out of the barrel of the terrorist gun. It is a brutal fact of life that the terrorist has won in Northern Ireland to date, and is continuing to win in the minds and hearts of the people, because the people believe that this Government are being defeated. Therefore, in the long run, it is up to this House to do that which is necessary to restore the confidence of the people there.
When the hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he supported the idea of a period of quiet, I felt that it was a great pity that he had not considered that a period of quiet was needed in 1969, when he was calling the mobs of West Belfast on to the street to take the pressure off the mobs stoning the police in Londonderry. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to answer for, as has his party, in respect of the present situation in Ulster.
As the Secretary of State said, this House asked the people of Northern Ireland how the Province should be governed. In effect, this House asked Lord O'Neill's original question, "What kind of Ulster do you want?" and the people of Northern Ireland gave a very clear answer. Only those who are physically blind and deaf or wilfully blind and deaf can refuse to recognise the clarity of that answer and to recognise precisely what the people of Northern Ireland wanted a year ago and what htey want and expect from this House today.
The Secretary of State said that the Convention Report would not work. How does he know? He has not tried it. He talked about achieving the right degree of public support, but he did not tell us what that was. I can tell him what Ulster believes. Ulster believes that it is capable of running its own affairs and that the right hon. Gentleman is not to be trusted. He may not like this—
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not care what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Wm. Ross: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not care what

861
I say. That is what is wrong. He has never cared what the people of Northern Ireland said. He has never listened to them. He has been blind and deaf to what has been said by responsible people in Northern Ireland. Therefore, he cannot succeed.
Ulster does not believe that this Secretary of State has the will to win or that the alternatives who sit on the Opposition Front Bench have the will to win, either. This House refuses to face the fact that its "love thine enemy" policy in Northern Ireland over the past few years has failed. It has failed because the enemy does not want to be loved. This enemy wants to win. This enemy does not care what it has to do to win. It wants to attain its political objective of destroying the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman said in this House that Northern Ireland wanted direct rule to continue. However, whenever I have asked him how many letters he has received in support of this contention, he has been unable to tell me. He has made some wild claims about the Royal Ulster Constabulary not operating in certain parts of Northern Ireland for 50 years. However, when I put further questions to him, he retreated from these claims. The people of Northern Ireland remember that in its early days the UDR was lauded as the force that would bridge the sectarian gap. Now we are told that it is not accepted by a large section of the community. I am told that in areas amounting to one-third of my constituency the UDR is not allowed to operate, yet, strangely enough, the RUC still operates in those areas.
Perhaps I may ask, in passing, whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the number of weapons that the RUC has. I believe that there are many areas in Northern Ireland in which the police would like a few more weapons, so as to be able to do their job properly and have a margin of safety, rather than work on a threadbare policy.
The plain fact is that the terrorists whom we face cannot go before the community, because they know they will not be supported there. They fear the ballot box. We do not fear it. That is why we are here. We prefer to go before the people with our solution, which is the same as that which emerged from the
862
Convention Report, and we support it. The right hon. Gentleman should dust it off and take another hard, long look at it if he wants to do something for which the people will work and vote.
The plain truth is that votes have been cast aside. The terrorist has been allowed to dictate policy. The longer terror is allowed to flourish, the deeper its roots will grow. We have seen what it has done to ordinary men and women and we know how dishonest and wicked it has made many people. We know how it has twisted hearts and minds and has destroyed Ulster. The longer terrorism is allowed not only to send down its roots but to spread its vile foliage of violence, pillage and death, the harder it will be to tear it out. It has lasted for seven years—seven years too long.
The Secretary of State has spoken in the House about the penumbra of Northern Ireland politics. We in Northern Ireland politics have often walked in that half shadow. But the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the umbra—the very heart of the shadow of politics and life in Northern Ireland. What is going on in the shadows? That is the question which the right hon. Gentleman has never fully answered. If he wants to take away that sunspot, that shadow over Northern Ireland politics, and to let the sunlight come in again, he must stop talking to para-military people behind closed doors. He will say that it is his officials who talk. I do not care: he must have sent his officials to talk.
What is going on in the heart of the shadow between the Secretary of State and non-elected people of all types in Northern Ireland? That is where the real darkness in Northern Ireland lies. Deals are suspected of being made. I do not say that they are being made; I simply say that it is suspected that they are made. The people in Northern Ireland believe that these things are going on, and whenever people believe something it does not matter whether it is true or not; they will act upon what they believe. I ask the Secretary of State to take away the shadow and to talk plainly in the House to the people. We, alone, have been sent to speak for the people of Ulster. If other people to whom the Secretary of State or his officials have talked want to be in a position to talk

863
fully, clearly and openly, let them come to this House and speak here. Then all the world will know what is going on.
We are told that this is temporary legislation. Temporary legislation creates uncertainty in the minds and hearts of the people. It gives comfort to terrorism. It gives hope to those who wish to bring about change. We do not want anything that is temporary. We want a permanent solution. We want certainty, before uncertainty brings an even more desperate destruction upon us. Will the Secretary of State propose some thing next year that is permanent, without carrying out an experiment? Will he present something that will work and will grow out of that which has gone before?
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said about restructuring education in Northern Ireland. We have a slightly different system of education from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a system that has grown up. It has been an experimenting system in many parts of the country. Some of the experiments have worked, and some certainly have not, but at least we have been willing to try. I should hate to think that we might be faced with a single system imposed upon us without due consultation.
As education is a matter that cuts across party political lines and the sectarian divide—it concerns all parents in Northern Ireland and indeed, many of the older pupils—I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that sufficient time is devoted to it. We do not want anything to be done hastily. We want the matter to be quietly and carefully considered without people taking up fixed positions. If people take up fixed positions in this matter they have to defend them, and often the defence is not sensible or logical.
Before the Secretary of State starts altering the hospital service in Northern Ireland, and specifically the facilities for the mentally handicapped, particularly in the western part of the country, I ask him to consider the work being done at the Stradreagh Hospital, in Londonderry, where a splendid system is coming under attack by some departmental heads in Belfast and, for all I know, the Secretary
864
of State. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go along to see what is being done for the mentally handicapped in the western part of Northern Ireland and carefully to compare the system that exists there with the new system operating in the rest of the country. I ask him to consider whether the system could be improved elsewhere by going back a step, rather than by destroying what exists in the West and bringing it down to the level in the rest of Northern Ireland.
I could say a great deal more on this subject, but we have had a long debate, and many other hon. Members wish to speak. I trust that the Secretary of State will take account of what is said today and will try to meet us at least on some points.
2.26 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), I found much to welcome in the speech of the Secretary of State. I welcomed the tone in which he discussed the question of the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. I welcomed also his reference to the fact—I hope it is a fact—that there will be legislation early in the next Session dealing with the matter of compensation. He said that there had been delay because this subject was steeped in Irish history and Irish law. However, I do not understand why more than 15 months should elapse before legislation is introduced. I am glad we have had a firm assurance that at last legislation will be introduced.
I welcomed, too, what the Secretary of State said about the extension of British legislation to Northern Ireland. Earlier this year I took part briefly in a debate on an Order which extended to Northern Ireland the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. I had the privilege of introducing that measure. I could not understand then, as I cannot understand now, why that legislation could not automatically apply to Northern Ireland.
I last took part in a Friday debate in the House when we were discussing the non-controversial Dangerous Wild Animals Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that

865
there is good reason for saying that legislation dealing with the control of dangerous men should be different in Northern Ireland from what it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, but I cannot understand why legislation controlling dangerous animals should be different in Belfast from what it is in Beckenham or why there should be different rules governing the control of tigers in London from those in Londonderry.
Clearly there is a substantial case in many instances for extending British legislation to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us a little more about the criteria that will be used in deciding which measures should apply to Northern Ireland. I am not sure that I entirely agree with what he said about the extension to Northern Ireland of previous legislation for Great Britain. He referred to divorce law and homosexual law reform, and he could have mentioned abortion as well. That is another knotty social problem.
But how are we to proceed in these things? As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said, the Members from Northern Ireland have not really discussed these matters on the election hustings. The Secretary of State said that he intended to consult widely with public opinion in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether he has considered consulting all the people in Northern Ireland. Some time ago, the Secretary of State for Energy said in a pamphlet that such measures as divorce, homosexual law reform and abortion law were precisely the sort of matters that lent themselves to a referendum. In the past, Northern Ireland has taken the lead with referenda in the United Kingdom.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would say that, next time there is a General Election in Northern Ireland, a referendum will be held at the same time in which the electorate will be asked to say whether they wish the British laws on those three specific subjects to apply to Northern Ireland. It would be a simple question to put, and I see no reason why the electorate of Northern Ireland should not be competent to answer it. One thing is clearly underlined by this debate. We have not yet got a proper answer to the whole problem of how the opinion of the people
866
of Northern Ireland can be heard in this House.
2.33 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall be putting it mildly if I say that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have no motive for opposing the Order. There is certainly a compelling negative reason for that, because if the Order were not to come into effect in the middle of this month, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 would revive. If I dared, I would say that there is at any rate one subject regarding the governance of Northern Ireland on which I have detected no hint of disagreement whatever. That is that the 1973 Act belongs to the past and not to the future, that it was unworkable, and that it entailed disasters upon that Province. I have refreshed my memory of the roll of honour of 24th May 1973—the nine Members who said as much before the event, and who sealed it with their votes. I shall only recall a few words of my own, where I said:
"we are not devolving responsibility to an Assembly or a Government in Northern Ireland; we are creating the maximum incentive to dissent and not to acquiescence and cooperation; and we are not establishing responsible organs of representation or Government."—[Official Report, 24th May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 720.]
So it has proved to be, and none of us wishes to see that legislation back—a reflection which perhaps ought to commend a certain humility to those still in this House who supported the Act and to those who introduced it.
Of course, the measure which, as it were, suppresses the 1973 Act, and which by renewing we enable to continue to suppress it, is itself, by its very nature, interim. However devoted one might be to French proverbs about nothing lasting except what is provisional, there is no mistaking that the form of governance of Northern Ireland under the 1974 Act, which we are renewing, is not a permanent system of government suitable for any part of the United Kingdom. From the point of view of those who live under it in Northern Ireland as citizens of the United Kingdom, as inhabitants of what the Government themselves in their factual document a year or two ago described as an integral part of the United Kingdom, there are four major respects in which they are at a disadvantage as compared with the rest of their fellow

867
subjects, four kinds of inequity and injustice under which they suffer and which our own presence on this Bench is the expression of their demand to see remedied.
These four defects are as follows. First, the laws under which we live in Northern Ireland are not made as they are made for the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we are not represented in this House as the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom are represented. Thirdly, we do not enjoy local government—in the old-fashioned sense of the term—in Northern Ireland, as our fellow citizens elsewhere enjoy it. Fourthly, we have not been conceded, to put it at its lowest, the right to devolved government or devolved legislative power which is busily being devised for other parts of the United Kingdom, parts which, by their situation or traditions, have certainly no greater claim than we have to such a measure of devolution.
I want to examine the state of affairs today and the effect of this Order in the light of those four remonstrances which we present in this House on behalf of those who sent us here.
The first is that we are not legislated for as our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom are. The right hon. Gentleman put before the House today, in introducing the Order, a very substantial package of proposals for the amelioration of law-making under the 1974 Act. I believe that the more they are studied—they are detailed and numerous—the larger the improvement, taken as a whole, will be seen to have been. When I say that every item in that package has been proposed and pressed upon the Government, not once but many times, by the representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, I am in no way seeking to derogate from the credit due to the Secretary of State. Indeed, I am adding to it by saying that he has done what he should have done so far as he has gone—he has listened to what has been said to him by the representatives of Northern Ireland in this House.
Although I am exaggerating, I am I believe not greatly exaggerating when I say that today is the first occasion since before 1922 when the representatives of Northern Ireland, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, have succeeded
868
in influencing and moulding according to the wishes of those they represent, to however limited an extent, the form of constitution under which they live.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is enjoying one of his absences from the Chamber; but had he been present he would have noted that I referred without party qualification to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. In this matter, as in a number of others, the hon. Member for Belfast, West, like the rest of us, has been a representative of those who sent him here, and is entitled to join in whatever we can claim as a result of our activities and representations.
I will not weary the House by running through all the items which the Secretary of State has put forward and which we shall be exploring in practice. I want to emphasise two points only. First, the prospect, where there is still to be substantial legislation by order, of being able to consider draft proposals, then debate them in the Northern Ireland Committee, and then finally deal with them as Orders on the Floor of the House, is no mean improvement, and no mean approximation, within the available limits, to the equivalent of legislation by means of Bill. With good will on both sides of the House, and the openness of mind which the Secretary of State and his Ministers have often shown, we have here a means of doing what we have been hitherto denied, namely making amendments to proposals before they take the form of law. This is one of the measures mentioned this afternoon which we shall practice, sharpen, and develop.
My second point is that we must not be too mesmerised by the concept of a Northern Ireland statute book, the existence of which somehow limits the extent to which the people of Northern Ireland can have their law made as the people of the rest of the United Kingdom have their law made.
The law applying to Northern Ireland can be divided into three categories. First, it is the law which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, as made by this House. Secondly, it is the law which applies peculiarly to Northern Ireland, as made by this House both before 1922 and since, though between 1922 and 1972 it was confined in a more limited sphere.

869
Thirdly, it is the law made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland in the 50 years from 1922 to 1972.
This is not a single corpus of law or a sacrosanct statute book. The Parliament of Northern Ireland inherited a statute book which was the creation of this Parliament; it made its own additions and, within certain limits, its own amendments to it; and all the time this House added to the statute book of Northern Ireland. A future devolved Parliament of Northern Ireland, if there is to be one, will be in no way inhibited by the fact that it will become responsible for this or that part of the law which has been made by Order, or by United Kingdom Act of Parliament.
Of course there are great technical difficulties due to the fact that so much has already been enacted for Great Britain which has been, or is to be, repeated by Order under the 1974 Act—certainly for some time to come. There are laws applied to us by Order, which would have been better dealt with by Bills. There is also the necessity to take account of special and different conditions which apply in Northern Ireland, though there is nothing which prevents or has prevented this Parliament from enacting by means of Bill legislation which operates differently in different parts of the United Kingdom.
In general, however, I hope we shall find that, given the principles which the Secretary of State enunciated today, more and more of the law by which the people of Northern Ireland are to be bound will be made in the same way as the law is made for the rest of their fellow citizens, with the same opportunities for public discussion and criticism, for amendment and for debate in this House. Thus we shall have moved a considerable stage further today, now that substantial note has been taken of this grievance, and substantial steps have been attempted towards the removal of it.
I now come to representation in this House. As has been mentioned by several hon. Members who have spoken, the Government have today recognised much more frankly than any Government in office had previously recognised the fact of the under-representation of Northern Ireland in Parliament. To recognise a fact like that is in the House of Commons the formula necessary for remedying it;
870
for it cannot be right that a population is deliberately under-represented here.
True, there is all the history, going back far before 1922, which shows how many heads were broken in the effort to discover some way whereby Ireland could be part, and yet not part, of the United Kingdom. There are all the contortions that were gone through by one generation after another in an effort to discover the right formula for adjusting representation within this House to a particular state and stage of self-government. That is history; but it is past history, because we are now approaching the debates of the coming Session on the great question of devolution in the United Kingdom with the assurance that devolution is irrelevant to representation in this House. We have been assured—even before the system of devolved government for Scotland and Wales is seriously debated; nay, before the Government's proposals on the subject have been unveiled—that the representation of Scotland and Wales in the House will not be interfered with. So no one can say "Ah, but if Parliament were to recognise this inequity and put it right, that would be slamming the door upon devolved government in Northern Ireland". We now know that the two matters are quite separate.
The Secretary of State will be greatly mistaken if he thinks that, once he has acknowledged the unfairness, or the deficiency, as he called it, this subject will ever again be silenced until it is dealt with. He is mistaken if he thinks it will be possible to pass the whole year between this Order and the next Order, to debate devolution and the future constitution of the United Kingdom, and yet allow this matter to sleep. I do assure him that to be seen to desire to achieve equity and remove this admitted injustice to the people of Northern Ireland, is a great element in securing the consent of the people of Northern Ireland to the form of government we are continuing by this Order. I am not saying that a people can always be governed by justice. I am saying that a people can not be governed when there is acknowledged injustice. Under-representation of Northern Ireland is now acknowledged injustice, and as such, I say—in the one place where that statement can be made and not denied—it will not endure.

871
Thirdly, I come to local government. Again, we lack Banquo: the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not here. [Laughter.] Of course one must think of all possible misconstructions that can be put upon one's words. I do not wish to cast myself in the rôle of Macbeth to the hon. Member's Banquo. One should consider what might come to mind all too readily in the circumstances of Northern Ireland today.
If he were here, I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said to him, that we are speaking about the necessity of the people of Northern Ireland having proper local government in the ordinary sense. We are not seeking to go back—I do not believe that there is any going back in this life, in politics or anywhere else—but we do want to see organisations like the Housing Executive and other bureaucratic boards—I do not use "bureaucratic" as a term of abuse—subordinated to a control more intimately local, more directly localised, than the democratic control which admittedly is exercised by this House through the medium of the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
Because this topic is for the moment not at the forefront, it should not be supposed that real grievance is not felt by ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland when they find that the simplest matters of inconvenience in their daily lives and in their places of residence can be dealt with only through bureaucratic bodies, often involving the intercession of their inadequate number of Members of Parliament.
I come then to devolution itself. By that I mean legislative devolution, the right of subordinate bodies within the United Kingdom to make law for their respective areas or provinces. In this context I will offer the Secretary of State another warning. Let him not imagine that devolved government can be debated or enacted for Scotland and Wales and that Northern Ireland and its just claim and demand will not be present at the feast. Nor let him imagine that as that debate proceeds it will be possible to continue to pretend that in Northern Ireland devolution depends upon the fulfilment of conditions that would be repudiated out of hand if they were offered to any other part of the kingdom.
872
We are told that Northern Ireland is a divided community, a community of which one part does and one part does not identify with the United Kingdom. We are told that therefore some special structure, some not merely undemocratic but anti-democratic structure, will have to be devised, and that unless we can devise and agree upon it, the answer will be "No' to us when it is "Yes" to everybody else. Yet in Scotland there is a substantial and increasing minority which "wants out" of the United Kingdom. The hon. Members of the Scottish National Party in their every speech repudiate membership of the United Kingdom as the future for Scotland. There is no concealing that. Why then are they not told: "You cannot have devolution in Scotland, where part of the electorate 'wants in' and part 'wants out', unless you accept some contrived constitution which will bring together into power-sharing those people who believe that Scotland should be an independent country and those who believe that it should be an integral part of the United Kingdom."?
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he will not have got very far through those debates in the next Session before the untenability of the conditions which have been invented to keep Northern Ireland out of the picture has become so evident that they can no longer be maintained.
I want to refer to one other speech in the debate today, and I apologise to the Secretary of State for detaining him a moment or two longer. That speech was by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Secretary of State did not enjoy that speech. I did not enjoy it, either. But it was right that it should have been made. Here we are, all of us, accepting an Order for continuing what is called direct rule for the next 12 months. Here are we in this House, with the powers committed to us, giving our consent to it. Yet being Members of Parliament, we are the intermediaries between Parliament and Government on the one hand and the people on the other, and when we return to those who sent us here, it is not in the language that is spoken in this House, with its nuances, its suggestions, its hints and its gradualism, that we find ourselves addressed. The people who suffer and

873
who live in fear speak to us as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry spoke to the House, and we should be in danger of underestimating what we are attempting if he had not reminded us. The Secretary of State, in working out in the next 12 months that to which he has set his hand in his statement today, must never for one moment leave out of his mind the realities to which my hon. Friend recalled the House.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) used the word "evolution". Everything which is good about this country, everything that Parliament has done which has lasted, has evolved. And so I believe that the future of Northern Ireland and future government for Northern Ireland will evolve and not be made dramatically or drastically, and certainly not forcibly. I take the risks of hope and optimism when I say that I believe we have accomplished one stage in that evolution by the Secretary of State's speech. But if evolution there is to be, the implication is that this is a starting-point, not a finishing-point, and that from here we and he shall go on, in this House and in Northern Ireland, building month by month upon the new foundation that we have laid.
2.58 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Responding to the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I express the hope that everybody will approach the terrible problem of Northern Ireland with humility. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the well-known French saying about the durability of the provisional. I hope that in this case it will be disproved.
The Secretary of State looks on direct rule as being positive. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) wants it to be made more sensitive, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who at least listens to his own speeches, said that there was no alternative, and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said that it was a sad milestone. I regard direct rule as necessary and unavoidable but also as regrettable, and I trust that it will be a temporary expedient.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made the point that
874
Northern Ireland was not in the same position, within the realm, as England, Scotland or Wales because its institutions were not adapted to the absence of executive government and a legislative assembly. However we judge the Macrory reform of local government, it was made on the assumption that there was a Northern Ireland Parliament and Government. The reforms drastically curtailed the scope of representative local authorities.
The 26 district councils are sometimes described as mere emptiers of dustbins. That is an exaggeration. Besides cleansing functions, they have duties in connection with such matters as consumer protection, environmental health and licensing. However, it is true that major civic and local services have been taken away from them, and their rôle in education, the library service, health and personal social services, drainage, the supply of electricity and the fire service is confined to nominating local representatives to statutory boards. I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South on this subject.
Not only is there no Northern Ireland legislature, but the Province's parliamentary representation is numerically insufficient and there is not adequate time or arrangements for discussing Northern Ireland business in this House. I therefore join with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in rejoicing at the conversion of the Secretary of State to the principle of increased representation at Westminster, though I noted that the hon. Member for Belfast, West did not share in the rejoicing. We also appreciate the efforts of the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House to improve our procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland matters.
The system which is to be extended by the Order is unavoidably and unquestionably bureaucratic. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South, I use the word "bureacratic" in as neutral a way as possible. The system will necessarily be remote from a public which, in the past, has been accustomed to easy access to legislators, Ministers and officials. The hon. Member for Belfast, West seemed nostalgic for Stormont, where there was easy access to the rulers. It is the nature of the system, rather than the men and

875
women concerned, which leads to this result, although the man in Stormont, like the man in Whitehall, is tempted to believe that he knows best.
The Secretary of State chided and even taunted my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon for objecting to the application, under direct rule, of Socialist measures to Northern Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mention our support on Harland and Wolff, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke with such knowledge, and Short Brothers.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned the consultative document on secondary education. This is already causing concern in places of learning and in various sections of the community. I beg the Government to be prudent and not to introduce elements of denominational and ideological conflict. There is enough of that already.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West was voicing the views not only of Roman Catholics when he said that Northern Ireland should not be considered benighted because of its divergence on such matters as divorce and abortion.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) welcomed what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) preferred to call the reconnaissance between representatives of the two main political tendencies. Nearly everyone who has spoken today has cautioned us against being too optimistic. Certainly we must not expect too much too soon. However, if such talks result in agreement on new institutions of regional self-government within the United Kingdom, it may be that the labours of the Constitutional Convention, which those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have commended, will not have been wasted. If agreement is reached, I hope that the Government will be able to give their blessing and their backing.
3.6 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I agree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), but how one is able to agree, and at what pitch one is able to agree, not just with a sentiment but with the detail, takes us back to the comments of the
876
hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Timing is not only for the politicians in Northern Ireland; it is for all of us. I feel that we have to wait a while yet to see what is to emerge.
My purpose in winding up the debate is not to be long. I have said what I have to say about the 1974 Act and the new procedures, which have been generally welcomed. I must make it clear that the system of Orders that we have operated for four years, even with the changes that I announced this morning, will still be the main way in which we get legislation through the House in the foreseeable future.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke about the Northern Ireland statute book. It is true that Westminster and Stormont legislated for Northern Ireland, but, except on rare occasions, only Stormont legislated on transferred matters. It is that body of separate Northern Ireland law that constitutes what we call the Northern Ireland statute book. If there is to be devolved government again, its task will be much easier if it is able to identify separately the body of legislation for which it is responsible—namely, transferred legislation.
The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke about an advisory body system, of which I am not in favour. The advisory body system under the previous Administration was composed of admirable gentlemen. Indeed, I was once invited to attend—[Interruption.] I was not saying that for amusing purposes. They were admirable gentlemen, but I do not believe that the system worked. I am not speaking against the individuals, whom I shall meet again very shortly in Northern Ireland.
My responsibility must be to the House, and a problem arises when economic cuts are made. Consideration is being given to the terms of reference of the Economic Council, and I should like to change them. The problem is that an advisory body wants to spend money, but my responsibility is to the Cabinet and to the House. I gather that the Opposition want to cut public expenditure to a vast degree. If that is so, I should not care to be in the hon. Gentleman's shoes if he meets an advisory body in Northern Ireland.

877
The members of advisory bodies do not come bearing gifts but requests for public expenditure—[Interruption.] No, I did not say begging. Quite properly they want to do what is right, but only when one has responsibility for expenditure can one decide the priorities that should be used. The same situation arose in respect of defence expenditure in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members have spoken about advice and easy access. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps I should tell him that his absence has been noted by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend said that there was ease of access at Stormont. That is true.
I occupy the former Northern Ireland Prime Minister's office, and I gather that people used to ring up directly to the outer office about matters of great importance to them which would not be considered to be of great importance here. That practice would come back with a devolved administration. Until I went to Northern Ireland I had not realised how easy it was for people to get round and about. There is easier access to Ministers in Northern Ireland than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. That sometimes also applies in the House. People do not always realise how much time is taken up in this way in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Fitt: I happen to be meeting Ministers in Northern Ireland about an industry in which 350 jobs are at stake.
Mr. Rees: That is why I brought my hon. Friend into the discussion.
I am sorry that I missed the speech made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He raised several matters concerned with the economy. As he is not in the Chamber now, I shall write to him.
The question of representation I find difficult. It is not a matter of logic, or of a strict relationship between representation here and in another assembly. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) referred to legislaion about which he had not spoken to his constituents before he was elected. Most of the legislation that I mentioned, on homosexuality
878
and divorce, I did not mention to my constituents. We cannot be held to pieces of paper that we put out at election time referring to matters about which we feel strongly. When we come to the House there are 634 other Members and we are subsumed within a wider arena, and we have to make a judgment.
I have been in Northern Ireland long enough to understand that, whatever was the feeling in 1922, there is now a feeling that is not so much anti-direct rule as a wish to return to devolved administration. Some people have a strong feeling that they want to be part of the United Kingdom, but on their own terms. They do not wish to take the parts of the United Kingdom legislation that they do not like. The strict logic of being part of the United Kingdom is that if there is a law on homosexuality in the Untied Kingdom that law should apply also in Northern Ireland. That is what being part of the United Kingdom means. I am not offering my personal view on the homosexuality law; I am just saying that that is the logic of being part of the United Kingdom Parliament. Those who want extra representation in the United Kingdom Parliament cannot move away from that logic. Extra representation merely means that the 16, 18 or 20 Members are subsumed within the other 640, or whatever may be the total figure.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we shall have interesting debates later this year and next year on devolution. They will not just be on constitutional matters; they will encompass what the United Kingdom is all about, not just in constitutional terms, a subject about which we have not thought for approximately 260 years.
When I referred to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and said that I did not care, I was not being rude. I said that if he wanted to be rude to me I did not care, which is a different thing.
Northern Ireland is different, and it is in the nature of that difference that one day it must have a devolved Administration.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (In-term Period Extension Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: If I may break the rules for a moment, I should like to announce that Mr. Deputy Speaker who will relieve me—the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton)—has this day been sworn in as a Privy Councillor. I thought the House would like to know.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I have with me a note to remind me to say that very thing when he arrives.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)
3.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.
On 14th June I gave to the House an account of the current security situation in Northern Ireland. As I made clear to the House, the most important security need is to make a direct contribution to reducing the level of violence in the Province. This is the touchstone by which the ordinary citizen will judge the policy as a whole.
In the debate on 14th June I gave the Government's view on security. I explained that, in my view, we were facing a long haul. I said that violence was currently high. We have seen in recent months an upsurge both of bomb attacks on commercial property and of murderous assaults on the security forces, particularly the police. This year six members of the Regular Army, seven members of the UDR and 15 members of the RUC have been killed; and 148 civilians have died as a result of the security situation, compared with 196 last year. This is a serious situation, as grave as the Province has faced since the troubles started.
We are nevertheless dealing with a changing situation. As I told the House on 14th June, there is at present less organised street violence than formerly, though it has not been entirely eliminated; and the number of shooting incidents has remained at the lower level
880
established during 1975. I can assure the House that, in these circumstances, the security forces are not pulling their punches or operating under any form of political restraint. On the contrary, the level of activity of the security forces has, in fact, become more intense to meet the terrorist threat. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will say something later about charges and convictions. As another example of security force activity, over 12 tons of explosive material has been recovered or neutralised this year, compared with just under 10 tons in the whole of 1975.
I also made clear on 14th June that we were awaiting the final proposals of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order, of which I am the Chairman, into the nature of the foreseeable threat; on the forces and measures that are required to deal with it and to achieve the rule of law; and on the way in which successful action will depend upon interdependence and co-operation between the Army, the police and other locally recruited forces. At the same time, I made clear that the studies my advisers have carried out for the Ministerial Committee have already begun to inform practical action and that movement and change have begun.
I should like to save time and, therefore, I shall briefly recall the three points I made a fortnight ago, because they are the basis of the further changes I want to announce today. The Chief Constable is setting up three regional crime squads. He is establishing units at headquarters and in support of the regional crime squads to collate resources and intelligence to secure convictions, and he is extending and strengthening specialised units dealing with forensic and similar technical work. That is already being done.
I must emphasise that the Ministerial Committee has been concerned with longterm issues. It has taken a cool, hard look at what the long-term situation demands. The committee's work has not been designed to produce a detailed blueprint. It has been concerned with a framework for the future—a framework, moreover, that allows action to be adapted to immediate and changing circumstances. The Ministerial Committee has now completed its work. I would have liked to publish its results, but by their

881
nature it woud not be in the public interest to disclose the details. I shall, however, describe in broad terms its findings.
First, the committee assessed the threat of violence. It is not always appreciated how many different kinds there are. I shall list the principal ones for the House because they are the basis on which one must work to analyse the means of dealing with the situation. They are as follows: horrifying assassinations of leading figures; senseless sectarian violence, attacks on individuals, expulsion of enclaves of the other community, demonstrations and provocative marches; attacks on the Army and RUC; explosive and incendiary attacks on commercial, economic and prestige targets; armed robbery and other crimes for personal gain; vandalism; violence in prisons; civil disobedience; and resistance to the administration of normal provisions of the law. When one adds up the number of people in the wider security forces which are needed for every eventuality, one finds that it is staggering.
Moreover, irrespective of terrorist crime there will be a major problem over the next few years with serious crime, such as protection rackets and a high level of crime committed by juveniles, much of which has arisen as an offshoot of terrorism. There is, too, an erosion of values and standards which manifests itself in the repudiation of debts and the evasion of payments for services. These illegalities are often justified by reference to some ideal or political aim which their commission is alleged to support. May I add that when I was looking at these matters this week, totting up the large sums of money which ought to be coming into Exchequer funds to help pay for so much of what is going on, again I found the result staggering.
The committee recognised that there was no instant solution and no way of ridding the Province of violence overnight. The Army provides, and will continue to provide, the basic security buttress, and I have made clear that cooperation between the security forces is already good and will continue to develop in the new circumstances. The only way forward is the way in which law and order has always been established in this country—by the police working to the law and securing its effective administra-
882
tion. Every other way of introducing law and order will always alienate one or other section or group of the community, who will come to feel that they have been unfairly dealt with. Alienation will grow and lawlessness will increase.
At the heart of the committee's conclusions is, therefore, the idea of securing police acceptance and effectiveness. By securing police effectiveness is meant the integration and acceptance of the police in the community to enable them to administer law and order effectively. It does not mean a return to the past. This is a particularly difficult and challenging task because of the legacy of Irish history. There is a traditional sensitivity and antipathy to the police. This stems from the history of the island over the last seven centuries, and particularly from the enactments of the eighteenth century. We have to recognise that the police are not acceptable in all areas of Northern Ireland today. The police will consequently have to overcome the legacy of the past as well as of the experience of the last seven years.
To increase the effectiveness of the police, the committee's main conclusions for the measures and forces required are as follows. For the RUC, the first requirement recognised is an increase in the size of the force; and second, the continuing introduction of further specialist investigation teams as appropriate, for example, murder squads and fraud squads. In some cases, recruitment for and training in new skills will be needed; in others, the present specialist capacity will be expanded to meet requirements.
Next, improved arrangements are needed for collecting and collating criminal intelligence, focusing on presenting information quickly and accurately in the form relevant to the specific police activity. In that connection, about which, I confess, I know little but to which I have been putting my mind recently, I stress the importance of having the procedures to use the information which is collected. That is vital.
The next item is flexible use of resources to concentrate on serious crime and preventive policing. These resources will be expanded to serve in each RUC division. They will as a whole also constitute a mobile force for deployment outside their divisions.

883
Next, special effort will be needed to make the RUC more representative. The percentage of Catholics has declined in recent years, but there has been an improvement over the last six months, which may, or may not be related to the ending of detention. But this will depend to some extent upon political factors and the opinion leaders in the minority community speaking up more frequently for the RUC. I am here using the words of the report. The next requirement is expanded training arrangements. Where appropriate, use would be made of universities.
Next, greater use should be made of the RUC Reserve to reduce the regular police and the Army where appropriate. There obviously can be greater use of the RUC Reserve to take over tasks which do not require the depth of training required for the RUC itself.
The final item relating to the RUC is further development of the scheme for local police centres, which I approved in September 1974, whereby local centres to provide a police presence, to provide advice and guidance, and for immediate access to police resources are provided in areas where a full-time police station is not justifiable. These centres also aim to encourage the minority community to help by supporting the police in their own areas.
To implement these measures for the RUC will, of course, require an increase in the number of its personnel. At the moment, the strength of the RUC is working up to the establishment laid down in September 1974. The regular RUC now totals 5,050 of an establishment of 6,500. The full-time reserve has reached over 700 out of a total of 1,400. We shall take energetic steps to recruit up to these establishment figures—that is the first task—and we shall raise the establishment to meet the developing requirements implicit in this programme. But first let us get up to establishment.
The committee also paid considerable attention to public relations and drew attention to the need to emphasise and demonstrate the effectiveness and impartiality of the security forces, to increase further and improve the link between the RUC and local authorities, community organisations and so on by increasing the number of liaison committees and
884
community relations teams, and to promote understanding of the role of the Police Authority.
It was also concluded that the RUC programme of community relations development should be vigorously pursued, but this is not a matter for the police alone. There are many authorities, both public and private, which have a vital contribution in the development and improvement of the community. There is an interdependence between these activities and improvements in law and order. It is wrong to think of community relations work simply as a buttress for law and order. If it is done for that motive alone, it will surely fail. But by increasing people's interest, concern and involvement in the peaceful and lawful development of their communities a most significant contribution is made to the achievement of the rule of law. This is one of the wider dimensions of security of which we must never lose sight.
The committee also considered the strength and rôle of the Army and the UDR. The committee recognised that the manner and strength in which the Army would need to be deployed would, as always, have to depend on the security situation at any particular time and the progress made in restoring the rule of law.
It concluded that there should be increased use of the UDR in such duties as relieving regular units of tasks such as the manning of permanent vehicle checkpoints. There are at the moment a number of full-time UDR soldiers in each battalion who provide the necessary services to enable the part-time members to operate efficiently. Whilst the overall strength of the UDR is below current establishment, the full-time members are now practically up to their establishment of 1,600. The committee is agreed on the need for an increase in the establishment of the permanent cadre. The details and arrangements for this increase are now being worked out. The permanent cadre would take part in the full range of UDR duties but, as I explained on 14th June, there will be no change in the rôle and basic character of the UDR.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the Secretary of State give any indication, however general, of the sort of scale of increase in the cadre which he has in mind? I appreciate that the

885
details are not yet settled, but can he help to that extent?
Mr. Rees: I considered that but I felt that it would not be fair to the House. We had the report two nights ago and I knew in general what was coming, but we need to discuss this with the Ministry of Defence. Rather than give a figure now, I should like to get the correct figure and I shall do that as soon as I can.
These are the main conclusions of the committee. I repeat they are guidelines for the future. I must make it clear, however, that the proposals are all interrelated. They are dependent on each other. No doubt there will be some—there always are—who will distort them by pretending to confuse the part with the whole and who will coin slogans such as "Army withdrawal". The truth is, however, that the committee's conclusions, taken as a whole, show how efficient forces can be built up for the long term while ensuring that in the short and medium term an adequate number of soldiers remain in the Province to ensure that the security situation does not get out of hand. The conclusions are long-term and are not intended to be applied rigidly. They do not affect the number of soldiers, which will depend on the security situation.
I emphasise again that the Army will stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is required. Its rôle at present is a vital one; the way in which it carries it out deserves the highest tribute. Similar praise should be given to the valuable work of the UDR and police.
The way forward is through the rule of law administered by the police. The community, however, has a vital rôle. Policing can be effective only with support from the community, and in Northern Ireland this means both parts of the community. I am in no doubt that since the ending of detention that support has increased considerably. But if the fight against terrorism is to continue to improve, the security forces need even more co-operation against the terrorist, whatever his sectarian label.
At this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to congratulate you on behalf of the House. I understand that today you have been to the Palace and are now the right hon. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I offer congratulations on behalf of us all.
886
Perhaps at this point I might briefly comment on the Police Authority. The terms of office of members of the Police Authority expired on 28th June and new appointments have been made. I have already announced the appointment of Mr. Myles Humphreys and Mr. Eiver Canavan as the new chairman and vice-chairman. In addition, and in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, I have appointed 17 further members of whom five are elected representatives from district councils and eight are representative of the other interests specified in the Act.
As the Government said in the White Paper of January 1976, we see a continuing rôle for an independent Police Authority with significant powers. Consistent with that view, I intend that the Police Authority should exercise to the full its responsibilities to the police and to the community, and I propose to hold regular meetings with the new authority both to seek its views on the needs and wishes of the community in regard to policing and to provide a forum for discussion on policing matters generally.
Northern Ireland responsibility straddles a great deal. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has a great deal of responsibility for the police and spends a great deal of his time with them, with the Police Authority and with the other parts of the panoply of police organisation in Northern Ireland.
As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, I am constantly reviewing the law relating to offences in the light of the changing security situation to discover whether any changes in the law should be made in order to assist the security forces in their task of bringing terrorists before the courts. This is a matter with which the Attorney-General is much concerned and on which there have been discussions with the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would emphasise that in looking at offences once must always have in mind the possibility of evidence being obtained on the basis of which a prosecution can proceed. Without evidence, there can be no prosecution.
The Gardiner Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the subject in 1974 and most of its recommendations were implemented by the 1975 Act. In

887
the light of experience and study since then, we have some further small, but I think useful changes in mind. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to intervene and talk about them later in the debate. I shall be seeking an early opportunity for such legislation as will be necessary to introduce them.
I have today outlined the long-term security plans of the Government. They are an attempt to avoid repeating past history. As a consequence, there is no question of setting up a Para-military police force, of policemen replacing soldiers overnight or of the premature forcing of the police into difficult areas. There will be no precipitate Army withdrawal. What we have is a flexible plan for achieving the rule of law by effective police work, developing over time, enhanced by increased co-operation with the Irish Republic, and always backed when necessary by the Army. But in setting the guidelines for the future we must not forget the present. That is why we seek the renewal of the present range of emergency provisions.
The Act of 1973 contains the powers essential for the security forces in the present emergency, special provisions for trials, including the procedure for a single judge without a jury to try scheduled offences, and the powers of proscription. The Act of 1975 clarifies and extends certain powers of the security forces and provides for a system of detention, placing the sole responsibility for making detention orders with the Secretary of State.
The Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 enables me to give a direction in the case of a young person remanded or committed for trial for his custody in a prison or such other place as may be specified, where I am satisfied that this is necessary in order to prevent the young person's escape, or to secure his safety or that of other persons. In the present circumstances, the provisions of the 1974 Act are still necessary.
Because of the continuing emergency, I seek the renewal of these emergency powers. As I have said, the killings are continuing. In some ways the situation is as bad as the situation in 1972. It would be irresponsible of me to give up
888
the existing emergency provisions. All of them might have to be used if the circumstances call for them, detention included.
There have been occasions in the last seven years when the men of violence have misjudged the mood of the majority in the Province, the mood of this House and the mood of successive Governments. Perhaps we have sometimes misjudged theirs. With all humility, I do not think we misjudge it today. We see them still as far away as they have ever been from their declared objectives. We see them faced with increased war weariness and disillusion with their bestial methods by the overwhelming majority of thinking people in both communities in Northern Ireland.
The achievement of a peaceful society through the progressive development of the rule of law is the most realistic way forward in Northern Ireland. It is the only policy that neither puts back the clock to the past nor leaves the present policy set in a static mould.
The speed with which a peaceful society can be attained depends upon resources and the support of the people. The Government will provide the necessary resources, but the will and action needed for their successful employment depends upon the people of the Province. With their wholehearted support and co-operation, it will be possible for the agencies of government to restore a peaceful society through the rule of law.
I therefore commend the Order for the support of the House.
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I join with the Secretary of State in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the distinction that was conferred upon you this morning. It will cause a great deal of pleasure to all hon. Members.
We agree with this Order and with the renewal of the necessary emergency powers, especially when the Secretary of State tells the House that in some ways the situation is as bad as it was in 1972. We must look to methods by which this situation can be reduced and brought to a peaceful conclusion. The debate enables me to make some comments on behalf of the official Opposition on the Government's handling of the emergency to which this Order applies. We shall need

889
to examine the long-term security plans of the Government at some leisure and we should like time to consider that aspect. The Secretary of State's remarks about the police were extremely important and I shall be referring to them later in my short speech. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the UDR are extremely important, and parts of them are welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on security held on 14th June. I shall not go over that ground in detail, except to quote one or two remarks made by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The overall pattern has changed. There is less of a planned campaign, less civil rights violence with mass confrontations on the streets. … This is something that the security forces have to take into account."—[Official Report, 14th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 44.]
The Secretary of State said that we were faced with a long haul. I am not clear about the strategy for dealing with this new situation. Does this matter appear in the recommendations of the committee mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman? Will it still be a containing operation, or will the security forces go over to a more offensive rôle?
The Secretary of State said that the level of activity of the armed forces had increased. I do not think that any clear strategy has yet emerged. If we knew that it would be likely to succeed, we should know whether to give it our support. That is our position, and in due course we should like to know more about the strategy.
We were also told by the Secretary of State that since the ending of detention there had been increased co-operation from the communities. I am prepared to accept that statement if the right hon. Gentleman can produce evidence that this has led to reduced violence. Has it led to an increased number of convictions? The figures for 1975–76 are not easy to follow, and I do not know whether they support the right hon. Gentleman's argument. They appear to be much the same as before. It appears that in general the level of violence so far in 1976 has been greater. We dealt with security at some length on 14th June, so I do not intend to go back over that ground. Since the Attorney-
890
General is present, I should like instead to deal with some of the legal aspects.
Through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), we have proposed the offence of committing an act of terrorism. My hon. and learned Friend is unable to be here today. But it is our view that there should be such a change in the law. As my hon. and learned Friend said in our debate on 25th March this year:
"It should be an offence that is common to the whole of the United Kingdom."
Thus, it would help those fighting terrorism over here as well as in Belfast. Without such an offence, the law is not strong enough, in our view. Not only are there those who stand behind the gunmen, sometimes openly walking about the streets unmolested by the security forces but, to quote my hon. and learned Friend again,
"if a bomb factory is discovered … and no connection with an actual explosion can be satisfactorily proved … the only prosecution that can succeed is one under the Explosive Substances Act. The maximum in that case is 14 years … in the present climate of terrorism that maximum is quite inadequate."—[Official Report, 25th March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 705.]
Far heavier penalties should result in consequence of any reform of the law.
I note from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the committee assessed the different forms of violence that constituted terrorism, and we shall continue to advocate this change in the law, making terrorism, by its different component parts such as bombing, shooting, kidnapping, incitement and possessing explosives, a single offence. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it would not deal with some offshoots, like protection rackets. It could not cover that. But it would deal essentially in one indictment with a single offence.
Mention of incitement recalls certain speeches made by members of Provisional Sinn Fein in recent times, and I do not need to refer again to the question of talks. But I wish to refer to the question of incitement, which could be included in the offence proposed.
The other matter to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention is that of the protection of witnesses. He will be aware that there was a recent debate about this in the other place on

891
the Second Reading of a Bill introduced by Lord Brookeborough. Witness protection is a long-standing problem in Northern Ireland, and this was an attempt to deal with it. The Bill was withdrawn, but there was an interesting debate.
Ever since 1972, when Lord Diplock considered the question of intimidation, and, in fact, even before that, people have been trying to find a solution to the problem of witnesses. The Gardiner Report referred to 482 known cases of intimidation between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder were too afraid to give evidence in court. Lord Gardiner commented that the prevalence of murder and knee-capping made this only too easy to understand.
As we know, by Christmas 1975 the right hon. Gentleman had ended detention, and I do not advocate a return of it, although we had a number of criticisms to make at the time. The right hon. Gentleman did that for two reasons. He said that there was a ceasefire, calling for a response, and that there were more convictions in the courts.
This is really the nub of the question central to the Government's problem. In 1976 there have been a higher number of killings than in any year since 1972 at the present rate, as my noble Friend Lord Belstead pointed out in the debate in the other place. It was central to the Government's position on ending detention that more information was becoming available which would lead to more charges. That is why the question of witness protection is extremely important, and why there must be some solution found to it. Having removed detention, can the Government find an alternative means of convicting the organisers of terrorism within the present judicial system?
Lord Donaldson claimed that the improvement in the conviction rate for murder and attempted murder was continuing, and he said that we were getting better information than was the case under the old system. But what is being done to ensure that witnesses are found to bring about convictions? As Lord Donaldson said, the problem of witnesses is at least half the problem of Northern Ireland. Those words ring true.
892
We were interested in what the Secretary of State said on the question of police effectiveness, and his view that it was not a matter of returning to the past, but that the police would have to overcome many problems. We were interested to hear that the committee had proposed an increase in the size of the police force and in training the police in new skills. We on the Opposition side have been interested in this matter recently and have advocated the appropriate use of universities and the RUC Reserve. We shall need time to consider what is to be done. We hope to have an opportunity very shortly of discussing that with the Chief Constable.
The committee said that use of the UDR in releasing regular units from various duties should be increased. That would be very welcome. We are also glad to hear that the number of full-time members is to be increased. We should like to have more details about that.
It has been difficult to discover what the Government consider to be the appropriate role of the Army in Northern Ireland, but we have had some enlightenment today through the report of the committee. That will create a better impression. We were pleased to hear of increased activity by the security forces at a time when many people are extremely anxious about the future. It is vitally important that all parties in the House should be entirely consistent on the need to maintain the security forces in Northern Ireland, and that they should remain in strength while they are required and until the question about the police to which the Secretary of State is committed is resolved.
The respective rôles of the Army and the police are at all times extremely difficult, when in some areas soldiers must act as policemen. However, there can be little doubt that the Army will have to stay in Northern Ireland for some time to come. I join the Secretary of State in his praise for the courage and patience of the Army, the police and the UDR in the present difficult circumstances.
3.48 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of my colleagues, I join in the congratulations which have been offered to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by other hon. Members.

893
The Secretary of State, in introducing the Order, rightly spoke of the gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland. The intense gravity of the situation has not perhaps been fully grasped by people on this side of the water. I should like to illustrate the depth of that gravity.
In my area, a young man having served a nine-year stint, was discharged from the Royal Air Force. Two hours after his return home he had a visit from the RUC, who said that he had better leave Belfast and return to the mainland. That graphically illustrates that many people in Northern Ireland are under serious threat. The other day a business man had to be escorted to Aldergrove and put on a flight to London, and had to go into hiding in this city.
It is vitally important that steps should be taken as soon as possible to show that the powers-that-be are making headway against a deterioration in the security situation. Until that is done, the confidence of the people will continue to be undermined, and when the confidence of the people is undermined then, with a sense of frustration and of disillusionment that the security forces can no longer protect them, a situation of a more serious nature could arrive.
An hon. Member opposite said earlier that in this country the moderate people were so revolted by attacks of terrorism that the terrorists saw that there was no fertile ground in this part of the United Kingdom for terrorism to flourish. I suggest that terrorism has not flourished on this side of the water because the forces of the Crown have been most successful in dealing with the situation, and have been able to do so with full power, full vigour and full strength. Immediately there was an upsurge of IRA terrorism in the cities of Great Britain, this House swung into action and legislation was brought forward very quickly to deal with it.
It is easy in a debate like this to make points, and it is not my intention so to do, but the Secretary of State himself raised the all-important point that until the security forces have an intelligence index and are able to go into a neighbourhood with that intelligence available to them, they will never be able to deal with the problem.
894
This House had better know that the intelligence that was at the disposal of the RUC was completely destroyed when the RUC itself was completely demoralised as a result of the troubles. For instance, this included the lines of communication that the police, over the years, had established into the Northern Ireland underworld. I have talked to senior police officers. We know how the police operate. We know that when a dastardly deed is done they have their contacts, they know who are missing, and they are able to piece the jigsaw together and act effectively. But that position in the RUC was destroyed.
It is rather amusing that even the IRA has recently called for the RUC. In South Armagh there was a case where a nest of evil men was pinned down by the security forces, with great skill—those responsible should be praised in this House. Because a case may come before the courts, I must be careful not to say too much. Suffice to say that the security forces pinned down these men and took action against them. When the men saw that they were in danger of paying for their misdeeds and resistance, they actually telephoned the RUC and asked its members to come and bring them out.
The RUC has been severely criticised and condemned in Northern Ireland, but I think it can rightly be said that it is very hard for anyone to doubt its complete impartiality when IRA terrorists are prepared to appeal to it to bring them out of such a situation. The time has come for every elected Member in Northern Ireland—and we have been told that elected Members are decreasing, even although some people still feel that their mandate stands—to seek every opportunity to encourage their communities to support the efforts of the RUC.
I want to deal with a very important issue—the detention of young people, which is a particularly important part of the whole detention system. I ask the Secretary of State what machinery he has for reviewing the sentences of young people, because certain young people are detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State. Those of us who have constituents with children or young people detained during the pleasure of

895
the Secretary of State are anxious know more about the system.
When a person is of a particular age group, certain procedures are gone through in regard to appeals, petitions and the removing of part of the sentence. But with young people it would be the general view of the House that they should be rehabilitated as soon as possible, and that there should be some way in which they should know how this particular detention is going to work, and what its length may be.
I ask the Secretary of State what progress is being made in providing cellular accommodation in prisons. Compound imprisonment has led to serious implications for the running of prisons, and order within prisons.
There is one particular case that I mentioned a year ago, which I raise again now. It is the case of Frank Newell, which has been widely discussed in Northern Ireland. This man is doing an eight-year sentence. On appeal, his sentence was doubled, but he maintains that he is innocent. The UVF issued a statement saying that they were responsible for the deed for which Newell was sentenced, and it could be that there was a case of mistaken identity. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is in a position to make any comment on the case, but it seems from the evidence presented that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I know that a number of representations have been made to the Secretary of State about this matter.
On the previous occasion when we discussed the standing of the police in the community we discussed also the matter of bail when members of the RUC are charged with scheduled offences. I have looked up Hansard on this matter, and I understand that representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the police representative body. Is the Secretary of State in a position to comment on this today? If we are to establish the primacy of the police, the members of the RUC should be given the same protection as is afforded to the members of the British Army. I am well aware that there are difficulties on this matter, which is keenly felt in Northern Ireland and which when we are renewing these provisions, should be considered and commented upon.
896
I welcome some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made as a result of his working party. There is a need for an increase in the RUC and the RUC Reserve. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that Northern Ireland Members have made representations from time to time about applicants who have been turned down by the RUC Reserve. There seem to have been quite a number of these. We would be glad of an explanation on this point. I have in mind the case of a young man whose brother is a full-time member of the RUC. He was urged by his brother to become a member of the reserve. He passed his test, and his medical test but he was rejected. He lives under the same roof as his brother, and as far as I know there is nothing against him. He has no previous convictions. There are a lot of these cases, however, and we have made representations about them especially to the Chief Constable.
In view of the establishment figure for the RUC, the reserve and the UDR, I would have thought that they needed to recruit as many people as applied. I know that there are rules to be followed, and criteria to be met. It is, however, a disillusionment for a Member of Parliament who advises his constituents to join these bodies to find that their applications have been turned down. One young man was a corporal in the Green Howards. He finished his time and was discharged, but he was turned down by the UDR. He had a good discharge from the Army. These events disturb us when we are trying to encourage people to join up.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is to have regular meetings with the police authority. A great shadow fell over Northern Ireland the other day, when a former member of the authority was gunned down. I think that these regular meetings will be most helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred in the earlier debate to the supply of weapons to the RUC. I have been approached about this situation in my area. Some police stations appear to have inadequate weaponry to deal with the sophisticated arms that are available to the IRA in their area. I do not want to pinpoint the area I am thinking of, because it might not be good for the

897
policemen concerned. I have made representations to the Secretary of State and I hope that he can tell us what progress has been made on the supply of weapons to the RUC.
In some parts of Belfast, I have seen policemen carrying bolt-action rifles while travelling in Land Rovers. These weapons are obsolete compared with those used by the terrorists, and the length of the barrel of a bolt action rifle can make it very difficult to manoeuvre in certain circumstances. It is problems such as this that are causing considerable concern to our policemen who risk their lives for the community.
I have made representations to the police authority, which tells me that it has made representations to the Secretary of State. Some say that it is a matter for the police authority and others claim that the Chief Constable is responsible. I am not interested in who is responsible. I want modern weapons made available to the police, and the regular meetings which the Secretary of State is to have with the police authority may help.
Obviously, representations will be made to the Police Authority by the policemen concerned. As I said earlier, I do not want to pinpoint the police stations to which I have referred, but I shall be glad to give the information to the Secretary of State.
I do not know whether the right hon Gentleman intends to have a recruitment campaign for the Crown forces, but I was interested in his remark that there may be a relationship between the end of detention and increasing enrolment by members of the minority community in the RUC. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to enlarge on that interesting comment. If the end of detention had that result, we should all be very happy.
The threats that have been made to business men are one of the most serious aspects of the current situation in Northern Ireland, because it is almost impossible for the forces of law and order to give protection to these key people in industry. Industry has already taken a terrible hammering in Northern Ireland, and one dreads to think of the repercussions of the slaying of more industrialists.
898
There have been salutory speeches by a number of hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), about the economic situation and the House should be aware of how serious the situation could become if the campaign against business men continues. It is all very well saying what people should or should not do, but if the Government cannot give adequate protection to citizens, they are entitled to give themselves what protection they can. That is what it amounts to in Northern Ireland at present.
I understnd that the Attorney-General will be speaking in this debate. Perhaps he will tell us that some new crimes will be made liable to the procedures of the law. Whatever is done in this realm is important, but many may feel that some of these things are coming a bit late in the day. One always hopes that whatever steps are taken will help in this vital matter.
The all-important feature of the thinking in Northern Ireland is not, strange to relate, whether we should have some machinery for devolved government but how to live and to carry out ordinary duties. The people in Northern Ireland are interested in going to and from their places of work and taking their children to school and bringing them home. Those are the all-impelling motives that lie behind the thinking of the people. Uppermost in the minds of decent people in both communities is the taking of measures to keep alive. I trust that measures will be taken that will help the people to have some confidence restored.
It would be wrong to pretend that the confidence of the people is in the forces of the Crown being able to protect them. They are facing the fact that there are situations that make it totally impossible for those forces to give them protection. Most people are coming to terms with the appalling fact that they must seek to help themselves. I trust that the House will be able to help them as they seek to help themselves.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: This is the first time that I have spoken in a Northern Ireland debate. I do so with the greatest of hesitation, but I think the House will agree that it would be a sorry day if the debate were totally dominated by Northern Ireland Members.

899
I address my remarks first to some of the long-term implications. It has been said that no clear strategy appears to be emerging. Maybe I am in a more optimistic mood, but I see a strategy emerging that seems to make great sense in an immensely complicated situation. Those of us who supported from the beginning the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland understood that with the passage of time a number of fundamental questions would be raised about the future rôle of the Army as a peacekeeper and the rôle of the RUC.
One of the paradoxes of the whole situation is that the Army went in to assist the police seven years ago as they were unable to contain the situation, and seven years later we are talking about the rôle of the police and the recrudescence of confidence within the RUC. I think the House will agree that a great deal has happened in the past seven years. I believe that the policy being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in what is called the primacy of the police is absolutely right. However, that does not in any way imply that those of us who supported the use of the Army are now saying that the end is in sight—far from it. It would seem to be a long time before we shall see the withdrawal of the British Army. Indeed, that is something that my right hon. Friend has emphasised. Nevertheless, the policy of trying to get the RUC accepted as the community police force is the crux of the matter.
Although progress has been made, it seems to have been rather slow. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend had to say about the police perfoming more police-like duties and moving away from what appeared to many observers to be the rôle of a para-military force. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the building up of the regional crime squad. I look forward to the time when the police in Northern Ireland are dressed like the "Bobbies" in this country, but that is a small point.
My right hon. Friend is right to stress the potential use of the RUC Reserve in a specialised way—he referred to the protection of police stations. It is unfortunate that most police stations in Northern Ireland have to be protected by the Army. It would be far better if the
900
special reserve of the RUC could be used for this purpose.
That raises the question of the future of the Ulster Defence Regiment. This is a controversial matter, but again it is the right policy to pursue. By building up the cadre of the UDR we may gradually help to restore confidence in Northern Ireland in the rôle of the UDR. No one would deny that there are still great difficulties in that respect.
For a long time to come the Army will carry the weight of peacekeeping. That raises profound questions because the British Army, in spite of its long colonial experience, has not primarily been built up for this kind of rôle. What effect does it have on the Army? This is not a defence debate, so I shall not pursue that beyond saying that it imposes an immense strain on the British Army, and we do not know what social effect the performance of a whole range of ordinary police duties has on the soldiers. In a democratic society, that throws up profound implications for us all. When I recently made a short visit to Northern Ireland, mainly to see the troops, I formed the firm impression that, in spite of the difficulties with which they were faced, they were getting increasing co-operation from the community and working closely with the RUC.
The question came up—not in a strikingly strident way—about co-operation in respect of the border, where there are still some delicate difficulties involved with the SAS. I shall not press my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on that matter apart from saying that it raises the question of co-operation on the border. I understand that arrangements between the Garda and the RUC are very close and that co-operation is good. Nevertheless, on the odd occasion the best intentions in Dublin, as elsewhere, are not always realised on the spot and there are sometimes difficulties on the border. However, I know that my right hon. Friend is dealing closely with that matter.
Speaking from an English constituency point of view, it seems to me that the Army has a continuing rôle to play in Northern Ireland but that, nevertheless, the policy of the primacy of the police is the right approach, so that normal conditions, perhaps in the not-too distant

901
future, can return to Northern Ireland. In spite of all the bad news that comes in almost daily from the Province, at most we are talking about a few hundred terrorists, and in the end I am sure that with good political will on both sides we shall triumph over the gunmen.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I want to take up the question of security, because we are looking back over a six-months period and recognise that the security situation has changed in two ways. We no longer believe that the ceasefire, if it ever existed, has any relevance. We also recognise that the concept of incident centres cannot be further pursued.
Having recognised those changes, we are also faced with a security situation which is materially different from that of 1972 in that, as the Secretary of State has said, the violence is of a different kind, more personalised, more skilfully devised, with the intention of giving the impression that the Province is basically ungovernable and not susceptible to law and order.
Indeed, one could describe terrorism in the Province in the same way as war has been described: that it is politics pursued in a different way from the normal approach. That terrorism has a political objective remains clear to us all. I listened to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) with great interest. He spoke about the primacy of the police. We would all like to believe that Northern Ireland could revert to the peaceful Province that I knew when I was there in 1955. We have to recognise, however, that in the seven years of this violence we have seen terrorism, murder and mayhem, bombings and shootings on a scale which in the United Kingdom one would never have believed possible 10 years ago. We have, alongside that, the political confusion which has stemmed from and has been created by the violence. In that situation, the police cannot be expected within the foreseeable future to become the security force of the community.
Having said that, I want to concentrate my remarks on two factors which are interconnected. However, before doing so I should like to welcome the statement by the Secretary of State because it seemed to suggest that the Government's
902
thinking about security matters is very far-reaching, looking to new frontiers, and I am sure that we all welcome it. But we are faced with the question of acceptability and, interrelated with it, the rôle of the police and the Army together.
In the debate on security I asked the Secretary of State whether acceptability had a historic context. What I would have wished to ask him had I chosen my words more carefully was whether people could not put their trust in the police as their protectors and guardians simply because the police are not there to protect and guard them in certain housing estates, areas of cities and so on, or whether it is an historic refusal to recognise the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and that therefore one has to change attitudes which are embedded in Irish tradition.
I mention this point because the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about the way that security in this country had stamped out the IRA bombings and violence. He implied that it was the excellence of the police force here which was largely responsible for that success. I suggest that, although the police are excellent, it was the fact that the community overall were against the terrorists that allowed the police to be so successful. It is the fact that the community overall in Northern Ireland cannot give the police that support which allows the sort of violence that the hon. Gentleman talked about to continue from one month to the next. If I am right, may I ask how that acceptability is to be gained unless the police can make their presence felt in areas which hitherto appear for months or years or even decades to have known little or nothing of regular policing?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that even in areas where the community totally support the police these terrible and atrocious murders are taking place? One cannot draw an absolute parallel. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but even in areas where the police have absolute support these terrible atrocities continue.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take what the hon. Gentleman says, and I confess to feeling somewhat rash in daring to talk about problems of security in Northern Ireland since they are so different from

903
anything we know on this side of the Irish Channel. But I make the point because, until the community can place its trust in the police and look to the police for protection, people will not be willing to give the acceptability which we know to be vital. Moreover, while intimidation can continue as it does, there will be a lack of desire to help the police as much as possible.
On the other hand, the police themselves must not be too timorous about going into areas where hitherto they have not gone. I say that because on a visit to Londonderry I was impressed by something which one of the soldiers told me about the Creggan and Bogside and the Rosemount police station. He told me that the police station was manned by one RUC policeman, but said, "The chap spends most of his life looking at the television". That will not be a police presence to create acceptability. Sooner or later, somebody will have to do something about sending not that man but somebody else out into the community.
That leads one to the question, prickly and dangerous though it may be, of how one can bring the community to give its acceptance to the police. The answer surely must be by taking from the community itself a measure of support, perhaps in terms of drawing from particular communities particular persons into the RUC Reserve, which could thereby provide more of a local police presence.
Having said that, I come to the question of co-ordination between the Army and the police. Last week, I was privileged to hear Inspector Milligan of the Police Federation discussing the rôle of the police in Northern Ireland. One of the points he made, which has worried me, was that in his view there was a serious lack of co-ordination between the Army and the police. We believe that the Army is in Northern Ireland in aid of the civil power, which implies that the civil power has the primacy. Indeed, if we use the expression "the primacy of the police", we are saying that the police should be No. 1, and those with other security rôles should act in assistance of the police.
However, it appears from what the inspector said and what others have told me that the police do not have that pri-
904
macy and that the Army acts very much on its own. There is a measure of communication and co-operation, but the police do not necessarily know what the Army is doing and the Army does not necessarily know what the police are doing.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I know Inspector Milligan well, but he is not an authority on the operational control of the RUC and the link with the Army, although that does not mean that he should not say what he wants to say; that is another matter. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that in the hard areas where the Army is present with a battalion of soldiers there are very few policemen, and where they are escorted in to do a task the Army takes the lead. It must be so. There is no other way. In other areas that is not the case.
Moreover, there are other elements in co-operation which would not be generally seen by the policeman doing his daily work, such as the intelligence side, daily talks between those in charge, and so on. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that in the hard areas it is the Army which takes the lead, and that will be so for some time.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he appears to imply that in what one might call the soft areas the police have primacy and the Army acts in what the police may say is the right rôle.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Exactly, yes.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that clarification.
I come now to two other points. On a previous occasion I asked by Question what the rôle of the Territorial Army was in Northern Ireland. I was amazed, as I always am, by the answer that the Territorial Army plays no rôle whatever in the security situation. I should have thought that those who join the Territorial Army join with the intention of playing a part in security operations somewhere, and, since their own Province is so desperately in need of every man it can find, there must be a strong case for involving the Territorial Army in the security forces of the province.
Finally, on the subject of young offenders, can the right hon. Gentleman

905
tell me whether the Purdysburn centre is completed or nearing completion, or, if not, how long it will be before it is?
4.30 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will forgive me if I leave his questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to whom I am sure they were addressed. In March, during the last debate on Northern Ireland in which I intervened, the principal question at issue within my responsibility was whether the running down of the system of detention had resulted in gaps in the law which could be filled only by the creation of new offences. I said that we were considering the possibility of new offences where gaps were shown to exist, but I emphasised that we were not satisfied that there were such gaps in the law. I warned that we should not delude ourselves into the belief that changes in the law alone could destroy terrorism.
There are two ways in which gaps in the law can become apparent. One is by deduction from criminal statistics, which show that offences are committed and that convictions are not obtained. The other is by observation of particular situations which discloses that conduct which should be punishable cannot be fitted into the existing framework of offences.
That violence in Northern Ireland remains at an unacceptable level cannot be doubted, but the statistics that are available do not indicate a need for panic measures. They do not show that the courts are unable to deal with those who are caught and charged with offences of terrorism. The conviction rates are high. In the first six months of 1976, 562 people appeared for trial on indictment charged with scheduled offences. Of those, 477 were convicted. The figures include 46 people who had been charged with scheduled murder. Of those, 36 were convicted of murder and five of lesser offences. That represents a 78 per cent. conviction rate for persons charged with and convicted of murder, and an 84 per cent. conviction rate in respect of offences other than murder.
The figures show that year by year, since the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the
906
percentage conviction rate of persons charged with scheduled murder has increased. The most recent figures available are for those charged in 1975 and tried last year or so far this year. They show a conviction rate for some offences of 85 per cent. That could be due to any one of a number of causes, but at least it is clear that it reflects the effectiveness of the prosecution process as a whole.
It is only too easy to be misled by figures. We know that there are cases that cannot be pursued because witnesses refuse to give evidence. We know that the ringleaders who plot and plan but carefully avoid becoming incriminated themselves are too often able to evade the consequences of crimes for which the actual perpetrators are caught and punished. Some people who assist in crimes escape conviction because they are able to satisfy the courts that they have no knowledge of the intended crime, although they know that some crime was intended. I give as an example the man who drives a motor car to the scene of an explosion, which is carried out by men in a car that follows. When arrested the driver of the lead car will say that he knew something was going on, because he was told to drive to a particular place. But he will add that he knew nothing about the reason for going there. In such a case the circumstantial evidence may be strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man knew the intended crime. But if it is not so strong, he may escape penalty, even though the court is satisfied that he was well aware that he was assisting in some kind of terrorist activity. The question then is what, if anything, can be done—not, as I have said, by panic measures but either by better use of the existing law or by minor changes in the law—to catch those who at present evade prosecution or conviction.
On that I should like to comment first on the offence of conspiracy. I do so because it is sometimes said that in Northern Ireland the charge of conspiracy is less acceptable to courts than it is in England and Wales. Because that is sometimes said, I have, since the last debate, thoroughly examined the question whether there is any substance in that idea. I am quite satisfied that there is none.

907
I want to make it abundantly clear that where a conspiracy charge is a proper charge, there is no bar to its use in Northern Ireland courts and no reluctance to use it. I say that particularly because of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the future rôle and method of the police. The offence of conspiracy is often misunderstood and its use at all is attacked because sometimes it has been used improperly.
It is entirely proper, for example, to use the law of conspiracy in order to deal with an agreement to commit a crime or to achieve the objective of the conspirators by criminal methods. That is true in particular when the intended crime is not in fact committed—where, for example, the police are able to make arrests so as to prevent the murderous attack that was the object of the conspiracy. If there is clear evidence of the intended crime, conspiracy to commit it may be the only proper offence—and it is certainly a proper one. If there has been any doubt about that, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, that doubt should now be dispelled. If the evidence is sufficient, charges will be brought against all the conspirators.
Again, that is very relevant to the question I was asked by the hon. Member for Abington (Mr. Neave) about a general offence of terrorism, because I think that he would agree, as certainly would the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), that what I have said covers a very large part of that field. Where a substantive offence has been committed—a shooting, or an explosion, for example—and there is evidence against those who participated, the proper charge to bring would be the substantive offence. In that case, those who aid, abet or plan the offcence should, if there is evidence against them, be charged as principals, together with the actual perpetrators, so that in those circumstances, conspiracy charges should be unnecessary—just as any new offence of terrorism would be unnecessary. However, there may be cases in which those who plan in the background, out of sight and, as they hope, out of danger, cannot be charged as principals, but the evidence may be sufficient to secure their conviction as conspirators, and where it is there
908
will be no hesitation whatever about bringing such charges.
However, in all those cases—in saying this I am only underlining the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—prosecutions cannot be brought without evidence. That is why I particularly welcome everything that my right hon. Friend said about the police, because it is through the obtaining of evidence, and obtaining evidence in areas in which we may not have been able to do so before, that we shall get our convictions.
The offence of conspiracy is not a substitute for evidence. It requires evidence. In my experience in dealing with one of the main questions that I have to decide in the course of my ministerial responsibilities—that is, whether the case is one for the Diplock procedures—I have been struck by the success with which in very many cases evidence has been produced. I do not say, unfortunately, that it has been produced with great success against the people who keep in the background, but against those who perpetrate there has been considerable success—not always at once but certainly often as time goes on, and when it has been produced the conviction rate, as I have shown, is high.
Those who commit these foul offences must be brought to realise, as police efficiency grows, that the police will and do pursue the criminals relentlessly and that the passage of time will not make those criminals more secure. Therefore, the changes in police procedure to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred should make their influence felt in reaching out at those who may consider themselves safe. Those changes will succeed not through any change in the law but by securing evidence against those who previously thought themselves to be safe from the securing of that evidence.
It is far better, if possible, to obtain evidence to support charges in the existing law than to alter the existing law simply to enable charges to be brought on evidence that is less than satisfactory. This is true, whether one is thinking of the actual perpetrators of these crimes, of those who play some peripheral part in the offences, or of those who plan and organise in the background—the spiders

909
in the web, who are often the most dangerous men of all, and against whom in the past it has often been impossible to bring sufficient evidence before the courts. Greater success in obtaining evidence to support charges based on the existing law to enable that law to he rigorously enforced as it will be is far more important than creating a new law to cover the gaps—particularly if the new law erodes the fundamental safeguards for the innocent which are part of our democratic heritage.
Nevertheless, as promised, we have scrutinised the law to see what gaps exist which could be closed by changes in the law. Frankly, I must tell the House that they are limited. We have given the most searching scrutiny to all the ideas put forward, whether in debates in this House or from outside the House. That scrutiny has shown again and again that the weakness is lack of evidence rather lack of offences.
That is why we must tighten up—and indeed, are tightening up—the methods of obtaining evidence and of ensuring that it can be brought before the courts without danger to witnesses. This point has already been made in this debate. The question of danger to witnesses has often been raised, and rightly so. Because of that fact, I made a study of the way in which the courts in Northern Ireland operate to deal with that problem. If a person who is a witness to an offence believes that he is in danger and for that reason is unwilling to place himself as a witness, he will not make a statement if he has not the courage to risk what otherwise might happen to him. Whatever safeguards are provided in the courts, we cannot provide safeguards for people who are not prepared even to make a statement to the police.
None the less, a study of the way in which the courts in Northern Ireland exercise powers to protect witnesses who fear vengeance makes it clear that the protection has operated for more widely in Northern Ireland than has been necessary or customary in the courts of Great Britain. I do not want to go in detail into the ways in which this is done, because I understand that in small communities whatever we may do may not be effective. None the less, I have heard of methods that have been adopted in the courts of Northern Ireland for this
910
purpose which, frankly, greatly surprise me, having my experience of the courts in this country, and I am satisfied that the law cannot go further in that direction without a real danger of destroying the credibility of the courts and the credibility of the judicial system. That is certainly a situation that neither we here nor the judges in Northern Ireland will accept.
There is no room for complacency here, but there is no complacency. In my view, we have rightly avoided methods of proof that would be seen simply as reproducing detention under another name and asking the courts to exercise an executive function as an arm of Government rather than their true judicial function.
I want now to refer briefly to other changes in the law that we have in mind. I mentioned earlier the gap in the law that exists in cases where a serious offence is committed and a person participates in it—for example, by driving the lead car—and the court is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the precise or even the general nature of the intended offence but is satisfied that he knew that some unlawful purpose was intended. In those circumstances, the only possible result of a trial as the law stands must be an acquittal.
It is a gap not only in Northern Ireland law but, indeed, in the law on this side of the Irish Channel. There are not many such cases, but they exist, and, although I am bound to say that a court either here or there would probably view with scepticism such a defence, it is true, none the less, that a person who simply does what he is told and asks no questions may escape conviction as a result—and there are such people.
There are two possible ways of dealing with cases of that kind, which I have to say are peripheral. One is to legislate so that, in the circumstance given, a presumption would arise by statute that the defendant knew the true purpose of the enterprise. An analogy to such a presumption is that which arises under Section 7 of the 1973 Act, when a weapon or explosive is found on premises where more than one person is present. In that case, the court may accept the facts proved as sufficient evidence of possession and, if relevant, knowledge. At the end of the evidence, however, the burden

911
of proof returns to the prosecution. A similar presumption could arise if legislation to that effect were passed in this situation.
Another possibility would be to confine any new offence to the activities of a proscribed organisation. Section 19 of the 1973 Act contains offences of this character. The 1975 Act added the offence of soliciting or inviting any person to carry out orders, directions or requests on behalf of a proscribed organisation, but, perhaps oddly, it did not make it an offence for a person to carry out those orders, directions or requests. Furthermore, Section 19(7) uses, admittedly in a different context, the expression
"takes part in any activities of the organisation."
Where it is proved that the substantive offence—the use of explosives or firearms—was an activity of a proscribed organisation, there seems to be room for an offence of carrying out orders, directions or requests made on behalf of the proscribed organisation or of taking part in such an activity.
Those two possibilities are not necessarily alternatives. I am afraid that I cannot announce today that they will be added to the law, but I can and do undertake that we shall study them further to see whether the draftsman can give effect to the suggestions that I have put before the House, in the light, of course, of any debate that there may be upon them.
I come now to the next three changes that the Government are taking steps to make in the law. The first is to apply to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which does not at present extend to Northern Ireland. I know that for some time there has been controversy about whether it should so extend.
The 1971 Act simplifies the law of criminal damage and reduces to manageable proportions the number of possible offences. That was one of the points made by the hon. Member for Abingdon when he was advocating a law of terrorism. The pre-1971 law, which applies with a 1969 modification, is complex and does not adequately cover all the gaps. A particular gap that is left open is that of the hoax bombers and other similar people, who have made so many threats of violence. They can be dealt with only
912
for the common law offence of creating a public nuisance, yet plainly in a situation of violence they can seriously disrupt the activity of the security forces. The 1971 Act creates an offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. That change—introducing the Criminal Damage Act into the law—will be effected by Order in Council.
Secondly, in Northern Ireland the Judges' Rules relating to the admissibility of statements by people accused before the courts differ from the rules for England and Wales. This is not a matter of such great moment as it might seem to be in the context of terrorist offences, because that problem is dealt with by Section 6 of the 1973 Act. However, it has been agreed and decided to assimilate the Northern Ireland rules to those for England and Wales, and the necessary steps to that end will be taken.
I come to another aspect of the changes in the law mentioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon in advocating the terrorism offence. The Government accept that the time has come for an increase in some of the penalties prescribed by various statutes—first, the Firearms Act 1969, secondly, the 1973 Act, and possibly other legislation. Section 17 of the Firearms Act Provides a penalty of five years' imprisonment for carrying a firearm in a public place. We think that that is quite inadequate, and we propose to double it to a maximum of 10 years.
One of the main reasons why we think that that should be done is that if a person is found to be carrying in a public place a firearm of modern type, perhaps of Libyan origin, ready for immediate action and perhaps showing signs of having been used, it is plain that the court would wish, if it could, to pass a greater sentence than the present maximum allows. The same is true of the offence under Section 19A, of possessing firearms or ammunition in suspicious circumstances, which we think should similarly increase from five to 10 years on conviction on indictment. There are other instances in the 1969 Act where increases in the penalties may be appropriate and which we shall consider.
All that can be effected by Order in Council. In terms of the 1973 Act we consider that there is a case, particularly in the context of what I said earlier about

913
possible new offences, and particularly since the end of detention, for increasing from five years the maximum penalty for membership of a proscribed organisation and other activities under Section 19. That, however, will require legislation. Other possible increases in penalties are under investigation, and where we think some to be appropriate, the Government will give effect to them.
The dilemma of the Northern Ireland situation is all too clear. There are few who would disagree that detention became counter-productive. It gave to the common criminal, the murderer and the gunman the wholly false glamour of the prisoner of war. The "special category" status added to that illusion. But inevitably the ending of detention throws a heavier burden on the ordinary judicial processes. These processes can be made more effective rather by better police methods, greater police recruitment, and by filling in as far as possible the few gaps in the law than by making any really fundamental change in the law.
If those remedies do not succeed, I agree that we shall have to think hard and painfully about the steps that need to be taken. What we cannot do is to turn the courts and the judicial system into an executive machine for locking up suspects. Methods of that kind we have recently seen and deplored in other countries, under different systems. They are not and cannot be part of ours.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall not seek to intervene again, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down he would kindly tell me and the House what is the result of his study of the memorandum on preventive justice, which the Miinster of State has given to his office. No one would wish to turn the courts into the instrument of the Executive, but the Attorney-General will remember that in 1974 some suspects—not all Republicans—were released from Long Kesh and Armagh gaol on sureties of a total sum of £10,000. Could not the power of magistrates' courts to bind over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour be more extensively used, particularly against incitement?
The Attorney-General: That point, which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to mention to me, does not fall
914
within my jurisdiction—although I agree that I have been talking about matters that also do not fall entirely within it. It is a matter either for the courts or, if the law has to be improved in order to enable what the hon. Gentleman suggests to take place, for the House of Commons. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer he seeks now, but he has drawn it to my attention for the first time and I shall make it my business to consider it and give him an answer by letter as soon as I can.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I want to address my initial remarks to the effectiveness of the RUC, with particular reference to its weaponry. Most of us in the House accept that this is a period of transition for the police in Northern Ireland in terms of defining their rôle in the present situation. This is the case not because the police themselves have accepted the vilification and propaganda spewed out by the SDLP in Northern Ireland but because they are prepared to rethink and define their rôle in the present situation because they want to function as any other police force in this part of the United Kingdom functions.
The police are realistic enough to appreciate that if they are to be afforded this opportunity—indeed privilege—there must be an effective anti-terrorist force, which of necessity must be a local force. Therefore, many members of the RUC now join up not because they want to become militarists in the full sense of that word but because they are realistic enough to believe that someone must encounter the gunmen, particularly if there is any reduction at all in the number of Army personnel in Northern Ireland.
The RUC also appreciates that if the primacy of the police is to be a meaningful concept at all, it must involve the ability of the RUC to encounter, to intercept and to destroy the IRA wherever and whenever possible. We are not talking in unrealistic terms; we are talking in terms of the police force being present in areas which they know best—in parts of the Province with which they are familiar. Therefore, these men and this force must be equipped to meet the immediate problem for which perhaps

915
no other expression of law and order is equipped to meet in terms of intimacy with the situation. This point has already been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
It is increasingly our lot to receive indications direct from the RUC that it has not the weaponry it requires to carry out its functions, particularly in rural areas of the Province. We welcome the indications given by the Secretary of State that an ongoing strategy is evolving in relation to the RUC, and we genuinely received this information with a degree of joy. We know that at the end of the day the IRA must be beaten by the more successful collection of information and the more successful application of investigation.
We realise that the bodies outlined by the Secretary of State will help very much in that respect. Nevertheless, we have to talk in terms of blunt realities, of men and women being killed and of property being destroyed at the most alarming rate. The RUC finds itself, whether it likes it or not, and whether this House likes it or not, in the forefront of the war against the IRA.
I turn now to the deployment of the UDR. In December 1975 the Secretary of State said that there were 14,000 members of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. It would be interesting to know precisely how many members of the security forces—how many soldiers—are actively involved in the streets and lanes of Northern Ireland for the sole purpose of eradicating the IRA.
Those whose function it is to service the Army inform us that there is substantial proof that there are not nearly as many members of the security forces present in Northern Ireland as there were heretofore. They are quite prepared to submit this proof, not in a condemnatory spirit but in one of society concern. Some of the proof offered to me has been considerable and convincing. If the Army is being gradually reduced—perhaps for the best of motives—other forces must take its place.
We have touched on this transitional period for the RUC, and to a certain extent there may be some ambiguity about its role in the present situation.
916
But there can be no ambiguity about the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment. There is no reluctance on the part of the regiment to accept its rôle as a spearhead against IRA terrorism. The UDR appears, however, to have two difficulties. First, it must try to cope with the situation while being under strength. Secondly, it is encouraged to adopt a more full-time role to facilitate in some way the planned withdrawal of the Army. Yet there seems to be a reluctance on the part of Parliament to afford it every opportunity to increase the full-time strength to the kind of numbers required.
We hear with interest that the full-time strength of the UDR is about 16,000 men. We believe, and those who are responsible for increasing these numbers should believe, that another 1,000 full-time members are required urgently in Northern Ireland. I return, however, to the first difficulty. It is incredible to receive letters from constituents protesting at being rejected after having offered their services.
I refer to the particularly important case of a man who served in the RAF and became an NCO. He also served in the Territorial Army and attained the rank of sergeant. He also holds an important position in one of the public services in Northern Ireland. Every member of his family has served in the Armed Forces, and two of them, including his son, are in the UDR. He was told that an interview had been fixed and that he should attend on a certain date. He was then told that he would not be required on that date, and he was rejected.
Thousands of pounds are spent on advertising the importance of the role of the UDR, and thousands of men are led to believe that when they volunteer for this service they will be thrown into combat with the IRA in a planned strategic manner, even though their role is one of defence of the Province. For these people to have their applications thrown back in their faces without adequate explanation undermines not only their confidence in the State but our position as upholders of law and order and of the status quo in defence.
The second problem is that of the full-time companies within the battalions. The strategy of the enemy is to kill and

917
destroy not in the evenings when it is easy to put extra forces on the street. These devils strike in the morning when men are going to work and during normal commercial hours during the day. They bring down one business after the other when part-time members of the UDR are in their normal places of work. It is desperately urgent that we should have enough full-time members, particularly in places which are susceptible to attacks by these IRA demons. We should need men with knowledge of the local geography because this is essential effectively to combat the IRA. There must also be a command structure which facilitates the immediate countering and interception of the IRA.
I want to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to clarify a point on which there has been much confusion. We were told before the wholesale release of internees that there had to be a genuine cessation of violence. There was then great euphoria at the right hon. Gentlemen's announcement that 1,200 people had been convicted in the courts. Whether intended or not, that statement created the impression that the vast majority of those people were members of the IRA, and this is manifestly not the case.
It is not our brief to argue the case of those who have been convicted, what-ever their political or religious opinions. Everyone who breaks the law should be convicted. However, we have not been able to convince the people of Northern Ireland that a death blow is being struck at the heart of the IRA by the normal processes of law and through convictions in the courts. I hope the Secretary of State will make clear that only a relatively small number of those 1,200 people are members of the IRA and that its most dangerous and destructive members are still at large. We wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to bring those people to court. It is incumbent upon him to prove, through arrests and convictions, that the IRA can be defeated by the normal processes of the law.
We must give the security forces more assistance. Identity cards with photographs, and perhaps fingerprints, would be much more reliable and less open to exploitation than driving licences or bank cards in establishing identity. It should
918
be compulsory to carry such cards, and provision should be made for the security forces to satisfy themselves—however long it takes—of the identity of a person without a card.
Such a system would have side benefits. It would help to remove the nonsense to which Northern Ireland people are subjected at airports when they try to enter Great Britain. We have to fill out a card which anyone could complete in any old way. It is a useless and futile system. Identity cards could be submitted when entering or leaving the mainland. This would be far more effective and would be conducive to a much more pleasant relationship between travellers and the police.
Identity cards could also be used to establish identity when a person collected benefits. Money has been misappropriated in Northern Ireland. I understand that under the existing law it is not necessary to prove one's identity when collecting benefits of less than £15. That is wrong. The Province lost £133,000 last year through misappropriated benefits, and that sum has been reduced by only one-third this year. Identity cards could play an important part in the reduction of that misappropriation.
Young offenders in prisons are causing great anxiety to those who are concerned for their future well-being and rehabilitation. It was a moving experience for me to listen to someone who could be described as a mature and hardened criminal. He poured out concern for some of the young people who shared a cell with him or who were close to him. He said "There is no redemption for me, but there is for some of the young people if you can get them out of this den".
I address that argument to the Secretary of State. What is the state of accommodation for young terrorist offenders? They may be dangerous, they may have dreadful potential, but what provision is made for their accommodation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us at an early stage, bearing in mind the number of young offenders who are now in the Crumlin Road prison.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as a Privy Councillor. I do so with great sincerity.

919
Debates on security in Northern Ireland are normally inconclusive, but I was hoping to be able to say—I should have done so if I had been called earlier—that this one seemed to be rather more constructive than others, especially when taking into account the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was called before me. The tone and tenor of his contribution will not lead to helpful attitudes being adopted in this debate or in Northern Ireland.
Anyone with no knowledge of Northern Ireland would be inclined to believe, not knowing the facts, that there is only one band of terrorists in Northern Ireland, namely, the Irish Republican Army. Four or five times throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the terrorists of the Irish Republican Army.
Mr. Bradford: Seven times.
Mr. Fitt: He then defeated his own argument. Shortly before he sat down he sought to condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for some of the statements he has made in the past. He said that one of the reasons my right hon. Friend put forward to justify the ending of internment was his statement that 1,200 people had been convicted before the courts for terrorist offences. He then said that only a small number were IRA men. If that is true, the majority of the 1,200 who were convicted of terrorist offences must have been Loyalist extremists. That is the full impact of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He condemns my right hon. Friend for saying that 1,200 people were convicted of terrorist offences and that therefore he could end internment, but he says that only a small number were IRA men.
Mr. Bradford: The Secretary of State stated that he could release internees, the vast majority of whom were IRA men, only if there were a genuine cessation of all violence. He changed his terms of reference and used the numbers convicted in the courts. The reason that there are not more IRA men before the courts is that the police cannot serve notices and charges in hard-line IRA areas.
Mr. Fitt: That does not in any way detract from my analysis of the hon.
920
Gentleman's remarks. If only a small number of the 1,200 were IRA terrorists, the logic is that the majority must have been Loyalist extremists. It is not fair, helpful or constructive for the hon. Gentleman to try to place all the blame on one band of terrorists for all the terrorism, murders, and assassinations. There are quite a number of terrorists in Northern Ireland, many of whom have been brought before the courts.
Every weekend there are three, four, five or six assassinations. On some weekends the majority are Catholics, on some weekends the majority are Protestants, and sometimes the figures are equal. Every weekend half a dozen people lose their lives. I am firmly of the belief that those who are responsible for these murders have deliberately designed their campaign to ensure that no political progress shall be made at the inter-party talks between the official Unionist Party and the SDLP. It is readily understood that progress at those talks will ultimately lead to the defeat of the terrorists.
I am no expert in security matters, but certain things should be said to my right hon. Friend to make him aware of events that may lead to a fall-off in support for the security forces. On many occasions hon. Members who do not support my political philosophy have criticised the role of certain members of the security forces. I know that it does not make for popularity to say anything in the House about the rôle of the British Army, the RUC or the security forces. Every country supports its army wholeheartedly. But anyone who is realistic realises that the Army is not composed of angels. Armies can make and have made mistakes. If mistakes have been made, they should be freely admitted. If people get the idea that cover-ups are being employed for the Army or the police there will be a fall-off in support for the security forces.
Recently in Northern Ireland a vicious and brutal campaign was waged against members of the RUC and many innocent members lost their lives, including a young woman. The whole community stood back in revulsion against these crimes. When a policeman lost his life in brutal circumstances during an incident at the Royal Victoria Hospital people in the surrounding area, which is largely nationalist, were aghast. The RUC

921
brought in people to be interrogated about the murder, including members of the Republican Clubs. I am no defender of the Republican Clubs and I disagree with many aspects of their philosophy, but three members were brought in and, if we are to believe what they said—I would not throw their evidence completely away—they were subjected to rigorous and unlawful intimidation by members of the RUC.
I am not a Provisional IRA propagandist, nor am I a propagandist of any description, but that interrogation gives me cause for concern that there are still members of the RUC who use brutal mehods. Members of the Provisional IRA have no hesitation in shooting policemen, soldiers, civilians and innocent people, but it is accepted now, although it might not have been accepted in the past, that members of the Republican Clubs are engaged in political agitation and are not involved in a murder campaign. If I thought they were, I would not be saying anything in defence of those three men who were interrogated at the Springfield Road police station.
These allegations having been made, I think it is the bounden duty of the Secretary of State to inquire into them and to ascertain whether they are true. If the Secretary of State can convince me that those allegations are untrue and were made for propaganda reasons, I shall have no hesitation in standing up in this House or anywhere in Northern Ireland and telling those people that they are liars and that I am not prepared to be associated with their propaganda. At the moment, however, I am not convinced that the allegations are untrue.
I have noticed in the past few weeks, particularly in the local Press in Northern Ireland, many statements emanating from the Provisional Sinn Fein making allegations against the Army. I am not quite sure how truthful they are. I am inclined to have doubts about many of them. I am inclined to think that many are related to a propaganda campaign against the British Army. But there have been one or two instances when I have felt that there has been intimidation and harassment of innocent people.
In this situation I think it is the duty of the Minister to isolate the cases in which there has been active harassment
922
and intimidation by the Army, so that we shall know that the majority of allegations are merely propaganda efforts by the Provisional IRA. But it is not good enough for people to say "We support every action carried out by the RUC, by the UDR and the British Army", because there are people in those three forces who can be guilty of misconduct.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South would say that every member of the UDR is an angel and he would support the UDR 100 per cent. But that is not right. Many members of the UDR have been brought before the courts and been charged with terrorist offences, and some of them have even been charged with the heinous crime of murder. The fact that such people have been charged with such crimes in the courts does not instil confidence in the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
I have misgivings about some members of the UDR. Contrary to the attitude expressed today, I believe that is right for the people in control of the Ulster Defence Regiment to make the most searching inquiries into the background and character of every applicant for membership of the UDR. If there is any suspicion that people with criminal records or political leanings are being freely invited into the regiment, and that those political leanings would tend to make them act in a way in which they should not act as members of an impartial regiment of the British Army, they should be prohibited from joining.
I am not advising my right hon. Friend on security. I am not an expert. I am happy to accept that the majority of the security forces in Northern Ireland are doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances. I am, however, saying that there are things they should not do, and it is those things which they should not do which lead to a falling-off in support for the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South would seem to want the House to believe that it is only in so-called Republican areas that the police are not accepted and the primacy of the police is not ensured. I believe that the phrase "the primacy of the police" is unfortunate. We know what it means. It means that we want to create a society in which it will be unnecessary to have the British

923
Army and in which we have a normally acceptable police force. But the way in which this Civil Service term was pumped out in statement after statement gave the terrorists in Northern Ireland the impression that the RUC would be armed with all sorts of sophisticated weapons, would go into all the Catholic areas in Northern Ireland and would shoot everybody who did not agree with them. The fact that that phrase was coined had something to do with the killing of innocent policemen.
It being half-past Five o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.

CIVIL SERVICE (PAY AND PENSIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Tim Renton: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the question of Civil Service pay and pensions. Over the past few months I have asked the Minister a number of Questions on this subject, to which he has always replied with unfailing courtesy, but this is a complicated matter not well suited to discussion within the framework of Questions and supplementary questions, and an Adjournment debate gives us the chance to go into it in rather more detail.
Anyone who asks a lot of Questions on this touchy and complex subject may be suspected of conducting a vendetta against the Civil Service. If that charge were levelled against me, I should wish to say straight away that I do not believe myself to be guilty of it. I greatly admire our Civil Service. I have no doubt that far and away the great majority of those who work in it work extremely hard, and until 1971 their pay, and thus their earnings-related pensions, were below comparable levels in the private sector.
924
The Minister may then ask why on earth I ask so many Questions, and my answer lies in that there are two matters about which I am greatly concerned. The first is the unfairness which now exists in favour of civil servants and the public sector generally, where there is inflation-proofing of occupational pensions, as opposed to the private sector, in which inflation-proofing as of right simply does not exist. Second, in inflationary times my concern is at the great burden of cost which we are laying on future generations of taxpayers in having to pay for these inflation-proof pensions.
All of us would be delighted if we were to have inflation-proof occupational pensions. It could be said to be a prime objective in applying for a job if one could look for such a pension. In this connection, let us come straight out into the open and say that, as Members of Parliament, we enjoy this right at present. In an ideal world, I think that we should all have inflation-proof pensions, because we should then be able fully to cope with rises in the cost of living after retirement at a time when we were not otherwise able to increase our income.
Nevertheless, when public resources are so desperately short I must question whether it is right for the public sector to enjoy this privilege when it is simply not available and cannot be afforded in the private sector. In an important matter such as this, I believe that social justice demands equality of treatment. Otherwise resentment grows, and I fear that such resentment is now growing between the private and public sectors.
In this respect, the Civil Service normally acts as pace-setter for the public sector. The civil servant's pension is noncontributory, it is not funded, and since the Pensions Act 1971 it is inflation-proof after retirement, without any ceiling, and it is paid for by the taxpayer.
In the private sector there are no pension funds which can afford to give that sort of treatment. When employees ask for comparable treatment, as some are now doing, the employer has to say that the profits of his business cannot possibly support such a cost. Some modern private funds inflation-proof up to a ceiling of 2½per cent. or 3 per cent. per annum. Many dipped into their reserves on a discretionary basis in order to give increases

925
to existing pensioners over the past few years. Two of them, ICI and Unilever, were pretty well able to match their payments to pensioners to increases in the cost of living. That was done at the expense of using up past fruits earned from good investment decisions.
All those major private funds have had to warn their existing pensioners that they are not likely to be able to go on giving discretionary increases at the same level in future years. None of them can give inflation-proofing without a ceiling as of right.
Thus, in the words of the editorial of December 1975 in Pensions World, which is the official organ of the National Association of Pension Funds:
"The Civil Service, and other public sector employees, have thus been placed in the invidious position of occupying a favoured place in the community."
My second concern is the cost of Civil Service pensions. In 1971–72 they cost the taxpayer £107 million. As the Minister said in a recent answer to a parliamentary Question, the outturn cost in 1975–76 had risen to an estimated £256 million. The net estimate for the current year is £267 million. Assuming inflation in the retail price index at the rate of 15 per cent., that £276 million will be increased by a further £10½ million, giving a total figure of £286 million. That will become the base line for the operation of next year's increases of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The cost of Civil Service pensions alone has thus increased from £107 million to around £286 million in seven years—nearly a threefold increase.
Public service pensions cost £730 million in the last year and went up by the large sum of £180 million to £910 million in the current year. None of the Civil Service pensions and relatively few of the public service pensions are funded, and we are, therefore, placing an awesome burden on the willingness of future taxpayers to honour the commitment entered into now. Many of us fear that if this commitment becomes too great, and if the discrepancy between the private and the public sector becomes too large, it is questionable whether future generations will be willing to meet it.
I have stated the problems and it is only fair that I should state what I believe to be the solution. The job of the Pay Research Unit is to investigate and
926
to ensure that the pay, pension, holiday and general working conditions within the Civil Service are comparable to those within commercial firms. But the staff of the PRU is entirely made up of civil servants, who are inevitably interested parties. I suggest that the character of the PRU should be changed so that it acts as an independent commission. Its members should be drawn from both the public and the private sector, from the actuarial professions, industry, pension funds, and so forth so that it becomes an independent unit with an impartial chairman. There should be more open disclosures of the unit's findings, and how they are arrived at. The new unit could then look at the cost of civil service pensions.
Also there is real confusion. It was recently said that the cost of Civil Service pensions was only 10·5 per cent. of the payroll, which compared favourably with industry. But this is trying to compare chalk with cheese. Ten and a half per cent. of civil servants' pay is the current cost for payment in one year, whereas occupational schemes have to fund fully every year the total liability. If one day the future taxpayer were to refuse to pay, all civil servants' pensions would cease, whereas the occupational pensioners would be secured for all pensions accruing to the date of cessation.
In The Times of 24th May there appeared a letter from Mr. John Dryden, the Secretary General of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, in which he referred to deductions directly related to Civil Service pension arrangements. I quote:
"In the first place, pay rates have been abated in a percentage figure equivalent to the contribution rate in the outside field of comparison, that is, 5 to 6 per cent. Secondly, a further abatement of 1¾ per cent, is made to take account of differences in overall benefits."
As I have repeatedly pointed out to the Minister, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding that second figure of 1¾ per cent., and the general view from the outside professions, actuaries and pension funds is that it is very inadequate. I have asked actuaries and life insurance companies for the cost of inflation-proofing for private occupational schemes. They have advised me that, on a typical model scheme similar to that of the Civil Service, if one assumes a 9 per cent. investment return and 8 per cent. salary

927
increases, thus giving a 1 per cent. positive yield, an additional 14 per cent. of current salary should be required to produce 10 per cent. increases in future pensions. If 15 per cent. increases are required—that is, 15 per cent. Inflation-proofing—that 14 per cent. of current salary rises alarmingly to 40 per cent. If nil yield on returns is anticipated rather than a 1 per cent. positive yield, the 14 per cent. of salary for the 10 per cent. inflation-proofing becomes 17 per cent., and the 40 per cent. becomes 52 per cent.
One can therefore see here a range of from 14 per cent. to 17 per cent. of salary for 10 per cent. inflation-proofing, and deductions as high as 40 per cent. to 52 per cent. of salary for 15 per cent. pension inflation-proofing.
It is against that background that I suggest to the Minister—I know that this is a highly complicated subject—that the 11 per cent. currently deducted is grossly inadequate. I should like to suggest that he considers the following: that the Pay Research Unit, having been reshaped, as I suggest, under an independent chairman, should then take exhaustive advice from the National Association of Pension Funds and Life Offices. It would then be in a position every year, after the increase in the Retail Price Index had been announced, to advise the Whitley Council, based on the current rate of inflation and the likely trend, that the deduction from gross salary for total inflation-proofing should in its judgment be, let us say, 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. or indeed, if inflation is down to nothing, nil per cent.
However, it would then be optional to members of the Civil Service whether or not they accepted that deduction. If inflation were too high and, therefore, the suggested rate of deduction was in their judgment too great for any individual member to bear, he could opt out and opt instead for the basic pension without inflation-proofing. In this case he would receive his salary without deduction for inflation-proofing. The fact of having this option would, of course, be of considerable benefit to members of the Civil Service.
My only caveat would be that once having opted out of inflation-proofing and having received a higher salary and, in consequence, a higher take-home pay,
928
it would not be possible to come in again and pay for an inflation-proofed pension in later years.
I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister, civil servants themselves and the Whitley Council wish their treatment to be fair in pay, pensions, holidays and all other benefits. It should not only be fair but be seen to be so.
I fear that the confidence of the outside world needs to be re-established in the work of the Pay Research Unit. I believe that this confidence is lacking at present, but I hope that the solutions which I have suggested will be taken on board by the Minister and examined seriously. I believe that my proposals would create the confidence that I wish to see.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I was impressed by the reasonable manner in which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) expressed his concern on the subject of Civil Service pay and pensions. I wish to exonerate the hon. Gentleman from any vendetta against the Civil Service generally, and I was pleased to hear him express his admiration in regard to the contribution made by the Civil Service.
Having said that, I am to some extent distressed that, once again, we have seen an attempt to single out the Civil Service as the target for criticism in terms of pay and pensions. It has been suggested today, and indeed on a number of occasions, that in some way the Civil Service has contrived to secure special privileges for itself in pay and pensions. I submit that this is fantasy rather than fact. But as the facts in this case do not always seem to speak for themselves, I am grateful for this further opportunity to set the record straight.
I wish to make plain from the outset that I cannot accept that there is any substance in the idea that civil servants are over-generously provided for as compared with the rest of the community in respect of their pay and pensions.
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that the principles relating to civil servants' pay were laid down 20 years ago after a thorough and most searching review of the issues involved in settling Civil Service pay by a Royal Commission

929
chaired by Sir Raymond Priestley, and they have been applied by Governments of both parties since that time. The Commission recognised that it would be wrong for the Government to set a lead in the rates paid to their employees but that, in fairness to those employees and to ensure that the service was staffed by suitable recruits, pay for the Civil Service should be comparable with the pay enjoyed by those performing broadly similar work in the private sector. That is the basis of fair comparison.
I turn to the main argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman, who referred to the inflation-proofing provisions that exist for the Civil Service and for public service pensioners. The hon. Gentleman said that social justice demanded equality, which was a moving comment. I hope to justify the arguments that the provisions implemented for the Civil Service represent that equality.
I wish to comment on the arrangements for inflation-proofing of public service and Civil Service pensions under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 introduced by the then Conservative Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who has a deep interest in this subject, will have studied the words of his party's spokesman during the passage of that Act. He will be aware of his party's views that the Act was a
"far-reaching and overdue reform"— [Official Report, 25th May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 239.]
It set out to put on a fair basis arrangements for maintaining the purchasing power of the pensions of those for whom central and local government had a particular responsibility.
That description does not cease to be true merely because the burdens that inflation would otherwise inflict on these pensioners have turned out to be far more onerous than anyone at that time could foresee. However, as I have said on several occasions, no group of pensioners can expect that the real value of their pensions will necessarily be protected at all costs, whatever the economic circumstances of the country.
Much has been made of the suggestion that the private sector employee is at a serious disadvantage compared with the public sector employee in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has reinforced this view again today. It is a view that I do not
930
share. I do not think it is possible to generalise in this way without gross oversimplification. Certainly many private sector pensioners have done at least as well as the Civil Service and public service pensioner. The hon. Gentleman quoted the cases of the retired employees of ICI and Unilever. When it comes to the better-off pensioners in the private sector, let us not forget that in many cases, particularly where selective use is made of the options available to pension scheme managers, private sector pensions can be very much higher than the highest pension in the public sector.
Those cases apart, it should not be forgotten that, for the Civil Service at least, comparative benefits and contributions are taken into account by the fair comparisons process, and I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Civil Service and public service pensioners make no contribution to their pension.
On the comparative cost of public service schemes, it should be remembered that no attempt is made to fund a pensions increase; the cost is met as it arises. No guarantee is given for the future and, if the cost becomes unreasonably high, the whole arrangement can be reconsidered at any time. At present, the annual cost to the nation is very much less than many uninformed critics have suggested.
Mr. Tim Renton: The hon. Gentleman said that the whole arrangement could be reviewed or changed at any time. Does he agree that the suggestions that I made could be implemented without legislation?
Mr. Morris: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give very serious consideration to the many points that he made during his speech. As regards the arrangements for modifications, I remind him that the 1971 Act contains certain provisions under which the whole scheme can be re-examined and that these provisions are the subject of a review which is being conducted at present.
As I was saying, the annual cost to the nation is very much less than many uninformed critics have suggested. Indeed, at the present time, working on a pay-as-you-go basis, the fact of the matter is that, after account is taken of staff pension contributions of some 7 per cent.

931
through adjustment of salary and direct contribution, the net cost to the taxpayer of Civil Service pension benefits, including inflation-proofing, does not exceed some 3·5 per cent. of the salary bill. By no standards of comparison with private sector schemes can that be held to be excessive.
These are but some of the complex considerations that need to be taken into account in arriving at the decision about the increase due on public service pensions this year, a decision that I hope we shall be in a position to announce within the next few weeks.
The hon. Gentleman indicated his concern about the way in which Civil Service pension arrangements are taken into account in determining pay. Let me try once again to clear up some of the confusions that still seem to exist. First, the role of the Pay Research Unit needs to be clarified. As I indicated earlier, the unit is essentially a fact-finding organisation, so it does not itself become involved in the adjustment of rates to take account of the differences between the Civil Service pension scheme and outside schemes. This is done by the negotiators within the rules set out in the 1974 pay agreement negotiated by the Official and Staff Sides of the National Whitley Council.
Secondly, arrangements for dealing with the comparative value of pension provisions need to be understood. Briefly, they provide for the outside pay rates used in making comparisons to be reduced to take account both of the fact that an outside scheme may be contributory and of any advantage in benefits of the Civil Service scheme over those avail-able elsewhere. Thus, for example, if the outside comparable rate of pay is £3,000 and a 5 per cent. contribution is paid for personal benefits, the Civil Service equivalent is taken as £2,850. A further adjustment is made to take account of differences in benefits of comparable schemes.
932
The 1974 agreement provides for the second adjustment to be made by deduction of a single figure of 1·75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman referred to that as being a matter of some controversy. but this figure was negotiated on the basis of the Government Actuary's advice for surveys completed before the agreement was made.
The agreement also provides for the figure to be reviewed after each annual pay research round on the basis of the advice of the Government Actuary. But the system of fair comparisons is in suspension, as is the pay research system. Therefore, the figure of 1·75 per cent. will not be reviewed because of the suspension. It has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman that 1·75 per cent. is inadequate to cover the advantage to the Civil Service of inflation-proofing. As I indicated, I accept that the figure may be a little out of date, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are dealing with a long-term assessment in which unusually high rates of inflation in particular years have less significance than the long-term trend.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put himself in the position of a clerical officer aged 18 who will not receive his pension until well into the next century. Would he not rightly be suspicious of an over-reaction to one year's inflation on an adjustment that affects his pay now? The figure of 1·75 per cent. could not at the time of negotiation have taken account of the exceptionally high inflation by 1975, but when economic circumstances and pay policy permit a return to fair comparisons the gure will be reviewed and will take full account of the situation at that time.
I hope that what I have said will assist the hon. Gentleman in understanding the basis of the system of Civil Service pay and pensions.
Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock.
Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE
  HM Ships
  HM Ships
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rabies
  Rabies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Discharged Prisoners
  Discharged Prisoners
  Penological Research
  Penological Research
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Professor Marat Vartanyan
  Professor Marat Vartanyan
  Peers (Offices of Profit)
  Peers (Offices of Profit)
ENERGY
  Electricity and Gas Prices
  Electricity and Gas Prices
  Radiochemical Centre Limited
  Radiochemical Centre Limited
  Coal Miners (Overtime)
  Coal Miners (Overtime)
  National Energy Conference
  National Energy Conference
  Sugar (Imports)
  Sugar (Imports)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
WALES
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Employment (Legislation)
  Employment (Legislation)
  Rent and Rate Arrears
  Rent and Rate Arrears
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Fair Employment Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Pension Books
  Pension Books
  Eleven-Plus Examinations
  Eleven-Plus Examinations
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
SCOTLAND
  Toxic Solvent Sniffing
  Toxic Solvent Sniffing
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Probation and Imprisonment (Costs)
  Probation and Imprisonment (Costs)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Education (Clackmannanshire)
  Education (Clackmannanshire)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Children in Prison
  Children in Prison
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Heart Disease (Report)
  Heart Disease (Report)
  Medical Consultants
  Medical Consultants
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Social Security (Abuse)
  Social Security (Abuse)
  Furniture
  Furniture
  Health Centres (Gloucestershire)
  Health Centres (Gloucestershire)
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Benefits (Repayments)
  Benefits (Repayments)
  Leicester Royal Infirmary
  Leicester Royal Infirmary
CIVIL SERVICE
  Costs
  Costs
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Nottingham (Bridlesmith Gate)
  Nottingham (Bridlesmith Gate)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Planning)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Planning)
  School Transport (Private Coaches)
  School Transport (Private Coaches)
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Rents
  Rents
INDUSTRY
  BAC 111 Aircraft
  BAC 111 Aircraft
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Chrysler United Kingdom Ltd.
  Lonrho Limited
  Lonrho Limited
  Waste Recycling
  Waste Recycling
  Iron and Steel
  Iron and Steel
  Furniture
  Furniture
  Dow Chemicals, King's Lynn
  Dow Chemicals, King's Lynn
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Faked Invoices
  Faked Invoices
  Hire-Purchase Agreements (British Gas Corporation)
  Hire-Purchase Agreements (British Gas Corporation)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
TRADE
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Nation Life Insurance Company Ltd.
  Nation Life Insurance Company Ltd.
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Manufactures (Exports)
EMPLOYMENT
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Collective Bargaining
  Collective Bargaining
  American Companies
  American Companies
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  LEGAL AID LEAFLET (WELSH LANGUAGE)
  LEGAL AID LEAFLET (WELSH LANGUAGE)
  Crown Courts
  Crown Courts
  Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules
  Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules
  INCOMES POLICY
  INCOMES POLICY
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Borrowing (Overseas)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Overseas)
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Tax Collection (Cost)
  Tax Collection (Cost)
  Reserves
  Reserves
  Standby Credit
  Standby Credit
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Overseas Loans
  Overseas Loans

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

BRITISH NATIONALITY LEGISLATION
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the review of the British Nationality Act which was instigated two years ago concerning the legal rights of British subjects.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the review of nationality law is well advanced and the detailed studies which have been made into various aspects arc now virtually complete. But these will have to be carefully assessed and the Government have not yet reached any conclusions about changes that might be made in the law.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether there will be progress in the near future, and, if so, what is meant by " the near future "? I gather that it is over two years since the review was started, and it would be advantageous for all concerned if they were to know how they will stand in the future.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly said, this matter has taken a substantial amount of time, but the issues involved are of a highly complex character. I do not think that I want to say more than I have today. I do not wish to give any firm date as to when we would be in a position to make a Statement, but we are well aware of the need to press on with this matter.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is growing disquiet that the boundaries defining British nationality are so hazy? We seem to be a nation without a nationality. Since considerable detailed examination will have to be given to this Lord HARM AR-NICHOLLS: My matter, can the noble Lord speed up the publication of the Statement or the White Paper which will enable us to see that something practical is being done before the feeling of disturbance which is now in people's minds becomes deeper?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; I think there is anxiety on this matter. I am not sure that the country as a whole is quite as seized with this problem as the noble Lord has suggested, but there are important issues involved here and certainly there is no disposition on our part to delay unnecessarily.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, will the conclusions of the review be published and, if so, in what form—a Green Paper, a White Paper or a Consultative Document of another type?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is one of the matters which will have to be considered.
Lord O'HAGAN: But, my Lords, will the conclusions be published? Can the noble Lord give a firm undertaking that some form of Statement as to the Government's intentions will be published at the conclusion of the review?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I repeat that this is one of the matters which will have to be considered.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord be a little more forthcoming and say whether it is hoped to make a Statement either in this House or in the other House before the Summer Recess? After two years of delay, and following increasing anxiety on this issue, can the noble Lord aim to produce a Statement, giving clarification of this matter, before we rise?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to give any firm undertaking about when a Statement could be made; I am not in a position to do that today. The noble Lord referred to two years' delay, but I would

939
not put it in quite those terms. The matter has been discussed and considered over two years, which is a rather different point.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any hope that we shall be able to get rid of the strange state of nationality which Hansard once misprinted as " partial "? Is there any hope of our getting a European aspect of nationality, which now seems to be due?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I were to give any encouragement on the latter point which the noble Viscount made, then any Government announcement might be held back for a substantial period of time. With regard to the noble Viscount's first point, this is one of the matters which no doubt has been considered in the review.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before his Government took office a very serious study of this matter was being undertaken? I was always under the impression then that this was not a matter for Party division. The noble Lord will recall that, when I was Home Secretary, he and his colleagues in another place were pressing me very hard about the urgency of this matter. That was over two years ago and the matter is still most urgent.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, as the noble Lord seemed unable to tell the House that there will be a public Statement, will he take on board what is, I think, the general impression from all sides that this is a matter of great public interest and that it is most desirable, in the interests of everybody, that there should be a public Statement? Therefore, will the noble Lord accept that there is a very strong case for making a public Statement?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one cannot disregard the demeanour at the Box? Since the noble Lord usually
940
inspires confidence, the fact that he is obviously working to a brief, which does not enable him to give us even minimum information on this important issue which has been under review for two years, is, in itself, disturbing. Will he urge his right honourable friend to give him the power to say something which can put the public's mind at rest?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I always do my best to stick to my brief.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SCHOOL-LEAVERS
11.11 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to decrease the large number of school-leavers who are at present unemployed, especially in view of the fact that there will be more young people leaving school in July.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, careers officers are doing all they reasonably can to find suitable jobs for school-leavers. The sum of £1·5 million has been made available by the Government to local authorities to provide additional posts in the careers service specifically to deal with unemployment of young people. The Government also announced last year, and this year, a number of measures to help young people in the present employment situation. These include money for a greatly expanded training programme, job creation, the recruitment subsidy for school-leavers, and an expansion in Community Industry. The Government are giving urgent consideration to the need for additional measures.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he tell me what training these careers officers have, because it appears to me from investigations I have made that many of them do not understand how to advise young people in the careers which they could undertake? At present there are available many apprenticeships, of

941
which I personally know, which have not been taken up. Has the noble Lord read the report from Germany stating that £300,000 is being spent on retraining 95,000 school-leavers—whereas we now have three-quarters of a million school-leavers likely to leave at the end of this coming term?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness can be divided into two parts. First, we realise the need for training and, consequently, it is young people whom we are seeking to recruit for training in the careers service. Secondly, so far as the Government's variety and extent of effort is concerned, I would point out that in the last two years we have allocated £220 million which has helped 175,000 young people.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government might circularise anybody who has to do with placing unemployed young people, or indeed anybody else, urging them to get rid of the term " menial " employment? It is a shame on their mothers, and there are many tycoons who started as tea boys.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would suggest that the great danger is that if we advise that that word should not be used, some other more objectionable word might be used.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my noble friend give any indication of the proportion of these resources that are being utilised with a view to training young people in more industrially productive types of employment, such as the apprenticeship scheme, and say what assistance and help is being given to industry, working in conjunction with the Government, in pursuance of the desire to get many of these young people into productive employment as distinct from the service industries?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords. Of the £220 million to which I referred, approximately £140 million is on the expansion of training schemes and on recruitment subsidy.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, in view of the fact
942
that different areas need different schemes, different training, different apprenticeships, would it not be possible to set out in Hansard the different schemes in different areas so that we may know what actual schemes are available, for example, in the high unemployment areas of the North? Is the noble Lord aware that in some areas certain schemes fit in, whereas in areas where there is really high unemployment we do not quite know what schemes are being put into operation? Would we not know a great deal more if the Government told us what is allocated to each area so that school-leavers know what is available for them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the schemes are of such a variety—and one of the reasons why they are of variety is that the problems are different in each area and with each individual—that to publish details of what happens in each area would almost fill a Hansard. I think that the noble Baroness is asking for too much.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission have just published an important consultative document on some new possibilities of recruitment for key skills. Can the noble Lord say how long a consultative period is going to be allowed? It is such a vital matter, socially and economically, that I hope the Government will make sure that, although thorough, the consultation will be quick and the following action urgent.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are giving very urgent attention to the matter to which he refers.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we must not be too lugubrious about this question and that, as has been known to many of us for over 40 years, the local authorities have devoted a great deal of attention, with career officers and others, to it? Should we not pay a tribute to the local manufacturers, shop-keepers and careers officers who give exhibitions in schools regarding the possibilities of employment? Is it not the case that so much of this is done that it would be impossible to

943
record it in Hansard, for it would take volumes to show the amount of local authority work done in this direction?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it has become fashionable, certainly with Governments, never to take any action without taking into account what happens with our European partners? In this field, is it not an excellent example that every one of the EEC countries without exception has some form of national service, not necessarily in the armed forces but in order that young people will learn the art, if art it may be, of discipline and working together in the interests of the community as a whole? While it might be a difficult political nettle to grasp, would this not be not only in the overall interests of the community but in the interests of the young people themselves?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is a case for and against national service, but it is another interesting question.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, on the contrary, it is not another interesting question; it is the same question. I would ask the Minister, before making a frivolous reply of that kind, at least to say he will go along and find out the facts. In France, young people after doing their basic training can opt into all sorts of activities, teaching, teaching in overseas territories, forestry and land reclamation. All these things are done in the interests of the community.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord has said about some of our partners in the EEC, I have to point out to him that at the present time they have exactly the same problem as we have: worsening conditions of employment for young people.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the Government attempt to ensure that any further monies made available to alleviate this problem are devoted to the provision of work and facilities for those unfortunate enough to be unemployed and are not devoted to the administration of the problem of the unemployed school-leaver?
Lord JACQUES: Naturally, my Lords, in these schemes we try to ensure that the least possible amount is devoted to administration so that the maximum number of people can be helped. I would point out once again that the greater part of the expenditure has been on the expansion of the training programme and the recoupment subsidy.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask his Department whether they have looked at the excellent publications recently issued by the Institute of Personnel Management, many of which advise young people and relate directly to the obtaining of jobs for young people who are getting jobs for the first time?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that the document in question is in the hands of the Department and is being studied.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIDS of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment (which will be after the Third Reading of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Bill) my noble friend Lady Birk will repeat a Statement on drought.

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES (CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
11.22 a.m.
Read 3a.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved the following Amendment:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Special period of limitation 1939 c. 29
" Notwithstanding anything in section 2A of the Limitation Act 1939, no action shall be brought by any person under this Act more than three years after that person ceased to be under a disability:
Provided that section 2D of the Limitation Act 1939 shall apply as if—

(a) in subsection (1) the words " or 2B ", in subsection (3) the words " or as the case may be 2B " and subsections (2) and (6) were omitted; and

(b) references to section 2A were references to this section."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must first apologise to those concerned in this Bill, both noble Lords and their advisers, for my failure to move this Amendment on Committee. I am afraid that on that occasion I did not make sufficient speed from the Library to get to my place in time. May I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that I have no intention whatsoever to delay the passage of this Bill.
What happened on Second Reading was that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, drew attention to the doctors' dilemma—if I may so describe it—in this Bill. There is the immense length of time that doctors might have to keep their records. This is a matter of the Limitation Acts. If there is one popular pastime above all that Parliament seems to enjoy, it is the alteration of the law on limitation. It happens about twice a decade so far as I can make out, and the last time an alteration was made was last year. The situation normally is that in the case of negligence, nuisance or breach of statutory duty an action can be brought three years from the time the action complained about took place or from the time when the person suffering some disability or damage from that action first became aware that there was a connection between the two. That may very well be a great deal more than three years. In addition to that, there is the further provision which has been in the law for some time where you are dealing with a minor. The time does not begin to run until the minor becomes 18 years of age, so the minimum period in the normal case is 21 years or longer if the person does not find out within that period that there is a connection between his accident and whatever it is that is now supposed to have caused it. Imagine how much more difficult it will be under this Bill, my Lords. Not only are we dealing with actions or omissions which injure a person during his life-time; we are dealing with actions or omissions which may injure him while he is still an embryo ; and, worse still, we are dealing with actions and omissions which may do damage to either of his parents in many cases years before he was conceived.
In all those circumstances there will still be a situation in which when the person is born he can still sue 21 years
946
from his birth, or, if he does not find out within that time, even longer. I think it was that that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, had in mind and he was worried about the length of time that doctors might have to keep their records. This is something which might be discussed with advantage once more, and I have put down the Amendment in order to raise it. I have confined the period to 21 years, unless the court thinks that, on the balance of advantage as between the two parties, the period should be extended.
I am not going to press the Amendment; it is simply a peg on which to hang the argument. I should like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to tell those interested once more why it is that this Bill is not going to lay upon doctors and, indeed, others, an intolerable burden of trying to keep records or remember what happened decades previously in the case of an action subsequently brought under this Bill by somebody for damage incurred either before the person was conceived or born. I beg to move.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Viscount has quoted me, and what was said on Second Reading, I should speak briefly to this Amendment. So far as it goes, I think it is an improvement and if this matter goes to a Division I will vote with the noble Viscount. As I tried to point out in an intervention on Second Reading, my concern is not purely to protect the medical profession; if it were, I would not be solely concerned with the length of time records are kept. If a doctor has a big enough house, he could keep them for ever. My concern was that a doctor will not know for a number of years whether somebody is going to bring an action against him. I hope my reasons for thinking that this Bill was a thoroughly bad one were made clear on Second Reading. Briefly, I think this Bill will lead to a great deal of disappointment and litigation about matters which are incapable of proof. I was glad to find that I was on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, in thinking that this was the wrong way to go about this matter; but it is much too late to say anything about that.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has performed a useful service in calling attention to this aspect of the Bill: that is, the question of the application of the Statute on Limitation. I hope that when I have explained the reasons which led those who framed the Bill to frame it as they have on this aspect he will think my reasons are adequate and not press his Amendment.
May I start with a general observation. Parliament last year reconsidered the whole question of the Statute on Limitation in so far as both adults and infants were concerned. Parliament deliberately accepted, as part of a major measure, that the community should in effect be generous in the case of infants in fixing the time scales within which they must bring their actions. The noble Viscount indicated what they are. The infant has, in the first place, until 21 years from the date of his birth to bring his action. In addition to that, when that period of time expires, if he does not know that he has a cause of action or against whom his cause of action lies, he can bring his action when he finds out, and for three years after that. One starts out with the position that, in the public interest when this matter was reconsidered in the Limitation Act last year, it was thought right to be generous when dealing with infants in the time that the community allows them to assert their rights. That is the broad background against which, in my submission, this issue should he considered.
That being so, my Lords, there are a number of other observations which I would venture to offer to the House. In the case of post-conceptual claims, no real problem can really arise, I submit; you add another nine months, perhaps, to the period which I have indicated. But it is perfectly true that you may get the case of a pre-conceptual claim which goes back a long period of time. It may go back years. Can it be said that, because you get that situation, the Bill is wrongly framed in that it enables the infant to sue in respect of that pre-conceptual occurrence, in respect of which he can now sue under the terms of this Bill? I submit not, for a number of reasons. In the first place. the House will remember that the Law Commission has already expressed the view, arising out of the thalidomide case, that, in any event, the
948
existing law allows precisely that. Under the existing law, if the Law Commission is right, an infant—that is to say, an infant born before this Bill comes into force—has the right to sue for an antenatal injury in relation to a pre-conceptual incident which may have taken place years and years ago. I feel the noble Viscount will agree with me that it really is impossible to justify a situation, assuming the Law Commission is right in the opinion which it has expressed, in which an infant who sues having been born before this Bill comes into force has a full right to go back to the pre-conceptual incident in question, whereas if he is born after this Bill comes into force his rights are much less. I feel sure the noble Viscount will agree that it is difficult to justify that situation.
I go on to the next point, my Lords. There is nothing whatever in any existing legislation to prevent an infant suing by his next friend when he is quite young; so that in point of fact, when you get the pre-conceptual incident years before, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the infant suing by his next friend when he is two, three or four years old. So the delay may not be long, anyhow. I say that in submitting to your Lordships that in point of fact the hardship which it is said may be occasioned will be very rare, and the problem really is—and I do not say this in any disparaging sense, certainly not disparaging of the noble Viscount's argument—a rather theoretic and academic one. It will very rarely take place, anyhow, because if there is a pre-conceptual incident which can be pointed to, the infant will sue by its next friend when it is quite young, and not too long, presumably, will elapse.
Then one looks at Clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 is the one which gives the right of action to infants whose ante-natal occurrence consists of exposure to ionising radiation. In my submission, it would be quite impossible to justify a situation in which, if an infant is injured after he is born, he has the full 30 years which the relevant legislation now allows him, whereas, if he is injured by an antenatal occurrence consisting of exposure to ionising radiation, he has a shorter period. I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that that would be a wholly anomalous situation which it would be impossible to justify.

949
I go further than that. Under the existing law—the law which has nothing whatever to do with congenital disabilities—you may get situations which are very much like it. You may get an infant who becomes conscious, after a period of years, that, owing to some wrong, he has developed a creeping, insidious illness which may not manifest itself for years and years, so that he does not know that he has a cause of action for years and years. You may also get this situation, which again has nothing whatever to do with congenital disabilities. It is arguable, but suppose, for example, that in year one a motorist runs into a wall negligently and damages its foundations, and in year twenty the infant plaintiff, then two years of age, is being pushed past that wall in its pram when, owing to the motorist's negligence, the wall collapses on him and injures him. The noble Viscount knows very well that there is no tort in negligence unless you have a negligent act followed by damage. There is a case which has just been decided in the Court of Appeal which gives some justification for thinking that it is the existing law that, in such a case, 21 years after the negligent act, the infant can sue. You would have to add the whole period which the existing laws of limitation, contained in the 1975 Act, allow; so that you would have, perhaps, 21 years plus another 10 years before he finds out that he has that cause of action, plus three years on top of that, plus 20 years elapsing between the negligent act and the incident—namely, the collapse of the wall—which caused the damage to the infant.
My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that those are adequate reasons for choosing the framework which has been chosen. He is, if I may say so with respect, perfectly right in thinking that in the other place, in Committee, although the Solicitor-General explained the effect to the Committee of the existing laws relating to the bringing of actions and the Statute of Limitation, that was not specifically discussed. It was, broadly speaking, accepted as being, I hope I may say, not unreasonable when a discussion was taking place on the meaning of the word " disability " at the Committee stage. I hope that for all those reasons the noble Viscount will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. After all, this Bill is a temporary measure, anyhow,
950
until the Royal Commission can consider the matter further; it is just to hold the position. As I say, I hope the noble Viscount will feel that it is not necessary to press his Amendment. I think he has already indicated his intention not to do so.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I speak as a layman in this matter, but as one who has taken a great interest in the development of atomic physics and radioactive production in relation to power stations, et cetera, I think that in the future, particularly in view of the EEC's energy policy, we are going to face the building of more and more atomic power stations, and it is time mankind understood the teratological effects of radioactivity. Here I perceive two different approaches, one to the law of property and a different one to the law of life. When it is said that doctors would have to keep documents and that they would pile up, in the modern age of computerisation and of the development of hospitalisation and health centres, the keeping of statistics is not all that difficult, and the analysis in biochemistry of the results of radioactivity are easy to discover. Consequently, a specialist particularly interested in radioactivity once said in a letter printed in The Lancet—and I remember the rhyme that he wrote:
"The nuclear boffins, God bless 'em all,
Have calculated the fall-out to a decimal;
But my nephew and niece
Have five legs apiece,
And their intellect's infinitesimal "
Mankind had better realise what it is messing about with so far as the congenital effects of radioactivity are concerned, and if one is going to limit by a number of years the right of the unborn to appeal for justice in a society which has willy-nilly developed a radioactive atmosphere, I believe mankind is taking a different point of view towards life from that which it is taking towards property. I may not understand the legal jargon and the splitting of hairs that takes place so far as lawyers are concerned, but I know what I know, and that is that the possibility of inherited teratological and congenital effects on the unborn exists, and we should therefore build up a framework by means of which they can be protected. Consequently, if there is any limitation placed upon the right of an unborn child, when it is born, to bring a case, through its elders or others, to the courts, like those concerned

951
in the thalidomide case, I would go into the Lobbies with my noble friend who moved this in the first place.
11.40 a.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, it is valuable that this problem has been ventilated in the House by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It has also been valuable to hear the masterly exposition of the law which has fallen from the lips of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. I should like only to say that I agree with his conclusions and his opposition to the Amendment; but there is no doubt that the problem is a real one. There will be hard cases on the margin, where nevertheless the generous attitude of Parliament and the law in respect of limitation should continue to apply. I recognise that for doctors and others who have responsibility in regard to the unborn child, the problem of maintenance of records is very real.
But that problem will still exist with the Bill, even if the new clause as moved by the noble Viscount were to be there, because in the Bill there would still remain the discretionary power which is given to the court to extend the periods of limitation beyond those expressly provided for—and I notice by the nodding of his head that the noble Viscount agrees. So the basic difficulty would remain ; but of course there are also difficilties on the other side. There are difficulties for the plaintiff and those who advise him and who identify the insidious disease, which was the illustration given to us, as being attributable to negligence either because of a nuclear plant, or whatever it might be, that injured the mother and caused the deformity and the insidious disease which manifested itself very much later.
The difficulties of proof on the plaintiff's side are not inconsiderable, but I think it would be regrettable if the generosity which Parliament has shown generally in that class of case were not shown in cases of congenital disability. I think Parliament has been right to recognise that in the thalidomide type of case the most important interest is the protection and compensation of the child who has been damaged by the negligence of another. This Bill establishes that principle very clearly, and I think it would be wrong to
952
depart from the generous provisions of the law as it stands to provide for a special class of limitation in this case. Accordingly, therefore, I hope that your Lordships will feel disposed to reject the Amendment, and I venture to think that the noble Viscount himself may not be reluctant to do so.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in this discussion. I think it was something which needed discussing and that when it comes to be read in the Official Report it will go some way towards allaying the fears that have arisen. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that I was not so hard-hearted as to cut the time off, because there was still a discretion in the court for considering hardship which might arise either way. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
I do not need much persuading to withdraw this Amendment and I shall do so in a moment in order to give, I hope, sufficient time for the noble and learned Lord to go on his way to receive his distinguished honour from Her Majesty in which I am sure we should all wish to offer him congratulations and " God speed ". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment:
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Stow Hill).
On Question, Bill passed.

DROUGHT
11.45 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
"As I told the House in answer to the honourable Member for Northampton South on Monday, 3rd May, there

953
was then already a danger that parts of the country would be facing water shortages this year. Their severity would vary very much from area to area, but on the basis of something like average rainfall the water authorities hoped to avoid major interruptions over the summer.
" Since that time, the special group of senior officials and representatives of the water industry which I established at the end of April has met regularly and I have been kept informed on a weekly basis. During the last week it has become clear that a combination of the underlying water shortage with the abnormally hot and dry summer we have experienced in the southern half of the country this year now faces us with potentially severe problems of water supply in a number of areas—primarily in parts of East Anglia, the East Midlands, the South and West, and South Wales. A great deal will of course depend on the weather over the next couple of months and, crucially, on the way in which the public respond to the water authorities' requests to save water; but it would be irresponsible not to recognise that over the late summer and autumn we may in some places have to tackle a series of localised water emergencies.
"We have discussed with the water authorities the range of powers available for dealing with this, and have concluded as a result that they are inadequate for what is a quite unprecedented situation. In particular, they have two major defects; they do not allow for progressive limitations on non-essential uses of water in a developing shortage, and they do not enable the water undertakers to impose in an emergency a flexible and equitable water rationing system. We have accordingly decided to bring forward urgently a short Bill designed to confer on statutory water undertakers new powers of control over use of water in times of shortage. Essentially we shall be building on the powers for Drought Orders already contained in the Water Act 1958. The exercise of the new powers will as at present be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales and they will be applied for limited
954
periods in specific areas where the water supply situation warrants it.
"I do not want to exaggerate the problems. Over much of the country water supplies should be adequate to see us through without difficulty until the winter rains come. But groundwater levels and river flows have fallen abnormally low, and it is factors like these which make the future so uncertain. The unprecedented weather conditions, which we share with large parts of Northern Europe, continue. In the light of this, it is right that we should arm ourselves well in time against possible difficulties later in the year. I hope, too, that everyone will recognise that this places a heavy responsibility on all of us to make sensible and economic use of our water resources."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
11.48 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. I do not think any of us will be surprised that after the extraordinarily long spell of dry weather, plus the recent extraordinary spell of very hot weather, some extraordinary extra powers have been sought by the regional water authorities. I think there will be a general welcome from both sides of the House for the Government's intention to provide them with these powers. Particularly welcome will be the emphasis placed on the fact that the power should be used flexibly and in different ways in different localities.
I have one question and one comment for the noble Baroness. No doubt there is a special legal drafting reason for using in two places the terms " water undertakers " and " statutory water undertakers ". Would she confirm that that means in practice the original water authorities plus, in some cases, water authorities? My comment is that I am sure that most people will be ready to do whatever is required of them, either now or as soon as it is required, without waiting to be forced to do so under the law. Therefore, I think it is a pity that the Statement has not quoted this particular matter rather more specifically about what actually is now required by

955
the different classes of users in the areas in question. There are, after all, the irrigators of land, industrial users, other metered users and domestic users and if the noble Baroness could go a little further and say more precisely what extra is now required of them, I think most people would be ready to respond without further ado.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. I think that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the lack of detail of what is required is important and I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to be a little more explicit when she replies.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if I may, I think it is better if I reply first to the two speakers from the Front Benches opposite. May I thank both noble Lords for their welcome support for the measures that are being taken, particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about emphasising that the powers should be used flexibly. It is in order to get this essential flexibility that this legislation is being brought in. As I am sure he knows, under the Water Act 1958 there was a degree of inflexibility, because this situation which has not occurred, I understand, since 1727 was not prophesied at that time. I can confirm quite specifically that it applies to both the regional water authorities and the water companies. They are included.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said he is sorry that the Statement is not more specific, but I believe that the situation is very largely now understood. The fact that we have made this Statement today, and legislation is to be brought in urgently, also underlines the position. Furthermore, my right honourable friend has said that he hopes,
"…that everyone will recognise that this places a heavy responsibility on all of us to make sensible and economic use of our water resources."
When the legislation has gone through rapidly, as I hope it will, the water authorities themselves will also be given guidance.
What we are doing is asking people to use their common sense and communal
956
spirit about things like not letting taps run, not using water unnecessarily and not being careful. I should have thought that was quite implicit, without needing to be explicit. This is what we are saying. There will be opportunities in the discussion on the Bill for any other points and suggestions to be made, but I should have thought that at the moment this was a simple proposition. We are telling people that this is the situation and that the greatest care is needed by everyone, everywhere, and not only in the areas where the shortage is acute. I. should have thought that this was quite valid today.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who came here this morning, rather worried about the nature of the Government's announcement, will be heartened somewhat by the fact that the Government's proposals are to be based on the principle of flexibility ? However, there are two points which are very important, judging by past experience. First, there should be a modicum of common sense: and, secondly, the Government and the water undertakings should take into account the fact that public opinion is one of the most important instruments in the solution of this problem. I join with the Opposition spokesman in asking that the Government should forthwith undertake an educational programme, by telling people and undertakings what is expected of them.
I do not need to declare my interest in racing, and I can understand the annoyance of those who are asked to conserve water by not watering their garden or not washing their car, for example, and who pass by a racecourse and see a whole line of sprinklers at work. But, unless those sprinklers do work, racing will come to a standstill and that is not what the Government want. Therefore, I suggest that if the Government consult with individual racecourses, because, as the Minister has indicated, the problem has a different impact in different parts of the country, and with the Trainers' Federation—it is not only a question of watering racecourses: the gallops also need to be watered—and, indeed, consult with all the interests involved, they will do two things.
First, they will get the maximum amount of co-operation from the individuals involved, because they will be as

957
concerned as everybody else about what could be a great tragedy bringing enormous loss to the community as a whole. Secondly, they will educate public opinion to understand that, because a golf course or a tennis court is being watered, it is not tantamount to high treason. Therefore, do not let us wait as, for example, we waited over the foot and mouth problem, which was then handled maladroitly by the Minister of Agriculture. This is a problem which concerns all of us and, by effective consultation covering every aspect of what needs to be done and what can be done, we may avoid Draconian methods at a later stage.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he has said and he is absolutely right. Consultations have been going on all the time, and will continue to do so. As I explained, this legislation will be in two parts. The precautionary part will deal entirely with the points which my noble friend has made and will cover nonessential uses, such as racecourses, bowling greens and golf courses. As my noble friend said, when people see water being used on these they ask themselves "Why on earth should I not water the garden, and why is it necessary to cut down in other ways? " They either feel that they will not do it or, what is even worse, they do not believe that a crisis exists. It is to cover this area that this legislation is being brought in. We hope that it will not be necessary for the second part to be brought in, but that will depend on the co-operation of people as well as on the way in which the situation develops.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that water authorities generally will warmly welcome the Statement which she has made that there is to be immediate legislation which will give these increased powers for the control of water resources? Is the noble Baroness further aware that experience has shown up till now just what she has been telling the House, that it has not been possible with existing powers to get adequate control in the areas of greatest shortage, and that in some cases consumers get the impression that there is not a emergency, because they see water apparently being used in an extravagant way? May I also ask the noble Baroness whether it is not true that the object of this legislation, which has been discussed in
958
very great detail with the water industry, is to ensure that we get a fair distribution of what we know are in some areas very limited resources? Is she also aware that the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will be well catered for, because they are well understood by the water authorities and these measures will be applied only in areas where they are really needed?
This anxiety about water supplies must continue throughout the summer months, where our prospect of replenishment of the ground water resources is practically non-existent until we reach the autumn and winter months, when temperatures are lower and, we hope, rainfall is higher. Therefore, we need the greatest possible co-operation from the public, and every help from Government level and water authority level, to get public opinion with us. Finally, is the noble Baroness aware that it will be most helpful to the water industry if we get this legislation very quickly?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for his comments, particularly as he is able to make them in such an authoritative manner as chairman of the National Water Council. It is very reassuring for the Government and Members of this House to know that over this matter water authorities are right behind the Government. The noble Lord is quite right about all the points that he has made and I can assure him that the legislation is being drafted. It is a question of detail; I have described the broad propositions. I agree with the noble Lord that legislation is absolutely essential, since it has been found that just exhorting people to save water has unfortunately had very little effect. Exhortation needs to be backed up by these powers.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness has said that at present the rivers are abnormally low, a point with which I agree, could she draw the attention of the water authorities to the fact that the daily pumping of thousands of gallons of water out of small rivers, particularly chalk streams, will have absolutely devastating effects in the future unless water is pumped back again when more is available? I would plead with the noble Baroness to ensure that not too much

959
water is taken out of small rivers. In many areas it is already very difficult for cattle to be watered satisfactorily. In my area we are already prohibited from watering our gardens or washing our cars. I agree with this proposition but I feel that an undue amount of water is being taken from small rivers, particularly chalk streams.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point and I am sure that the water authorities will do so as well, but at this stage I do not think I can enter into a technical discussion as to whether the pumping out of water is necessary, too much or just enough. Obviously, however, note has to be taken of this point.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I first raised this subject on 4th March when the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave me a very soft and gentle reply which boiled down to the fact that the situation was being watched. May I say to the noble Baroness that I am delighted that somebody has at last seen something. When the Government are considering the drought situation, will they be prepared to tell the public how it is going to affect them in the future? For those of us who live where everything starts, as opposed to those who live in the conurbations, one of the most devastating features of the present situation is that we have to watch our vegetables just vanishing through lack of water. When the balancing of water supplies is made out, would the noble Baroness please ask the water authorities to ensure that agriculture first gets the best supply possible, otherwise the cost of living will rocket ?
May I suggest that we should think about what water means and is likely to mean if the drought continues. The first priority is water for people to drink: the second priority is water to provide basic food; the third priority is water for industry. Perhaps the noble Baroness will believe me when I say that whatever gift of rain we are given, I cannot see any improvement, looking at it from a countryman's point of view, for at least 12 months.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I agree very much with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. The
960
long-term point has not been overlooked by the Government. Indeed, my right honourable friend has said that we shall have to look at that point; it may well be that we are in the midst of a change of climate, although we do not know for sure about that. The noble Lord's point about agriculture is perfectly right. It is because of the essential priority of water for agriculture that these measures are being taken. They will ensure that when there is a shortage of water it is used to the best purpose for the community. Again, cutting down on non-essential uses and, if necessary, using the powers to ensure this means that water will also be used to the best advantage in industry. I can assure the noble Lord that the points which he has raised, which are very important ones, are understood by the Government who have them very much in mind.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask a genuine question in the form of a question: whether my noble friend will be as generous as possible to the export industry when she issues the advice about flexibility, in the interests of both employment and our balance of trade ?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is the whole point of trying to obtain the best use of what is at the moment a scarce resource. Water for industrial use is, of course, a priority.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to extend the discussion to the drought and no likelihood of its breaking, coupled with the high winds which make the situation even more precarious in our national forests and private woodlands, a point to which various speakers have already made reference. May I suggest that the noble Baroness should draw to the attention of the Government the fact that something like 40 fires are breaking out every day in East Anglia and the South of England and that the fire risk has now spread to Yorkshire and the North. The noble Baroness is probably well aware that forest fires on peat land can rekindle and that it will be only a question of time before it is necessary to call in the Armed Forces or some other body to cope with a situation which is becoming

961
critical. The situation arises from the shortage of water, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for bringing to your attention the fact that as timber is now our third largest import it is important that we whould preserve our woodlands.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Government are, of course, aware of that point and are doing everything that they can. I am sure that the noble Lord is also aware that this problem is caused by the decrease in ground water. Again this is not a point which the Government could possibly overlook.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, in the light of the impression that I have received from the answers to the questions, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the instructions will be more definite regarding the non-use of water and whether there will be any refund of fees to those who have paid for water which they will not he allowed to use?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are coming now to questions of detail which we shall be able to discuss when the Bill reaches this House. The legislation is coming through very quickly and we hope that it will be discussed here at an early stage. Probably, therefore, it would be better to wait and see what is in the Bill and then to debate some of these points.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, by your leave may I ask one further question? Will the noble Baroness consider the possible saving of water in coastal areas if the public were allowed to have the substance that was used during the war in troop ships—salt water soap—by which one could obtain adequate laundering and bathing? If such a substance were made available to the public, would it help the water situation?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are moving into rather sophisticated detailed areas. All these points will be noted and I will make sure that my right honourable friend sees them, as recorded in Hansard. I cannot give a Yes or No answer to the question. However, if people individually are able to do this, obviously it will help the situation.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ARMED FORCES) BILL
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Vickers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS BILL
12.10 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chelwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licences]:
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, after (" stipulate ") insect (" (being a fee which is in the authority's opinion sufficient to meet the direct and indirect costs which it may incur as a result of the application) ").
The noble Lord said : In moving this Amendment, I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I take the opportunity to say a brief word about the Amendments which we have to consider today. They are self-explanatory, and it was obvious from the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House that there were a number of reasonable criticisms that ought to be met and that there was therefore still room for improvement in the Bill.
If I may say so, I am very much indebted to my noble friends Lord de Clifford and Lord Newall for the care which they took to ensure that this measure said what it meant with absolute clarity. During the

963
course of the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord 'Wells-Pestell, suggested a meeting in which the Bill's sponsor, Mr. Peter Thomas, and I could discuss with him and the critics of the Bill ways of improving it without in any way changing its objects. That was a suggestion which I accepted with alacrity and pleasure. Thus with the excellent help and advice of senior officials we went through all the criticisms and suggestions and reached complete accord.
Where the criticisms could not be met by Amendments, the original wording, coupled in some cases with the guidelines which will undoubtedly be issued by the Home Office and local authorities seemed to provide a satisfactory answer. This kind of co-operation between the two Houses obviously has much merit in helping to carry out our traditional revising role as a Second Chamber, and is perhaps especially suitable for a Private Member's Bill commanding such wide support in all quarters of both Houses. I should like, if I may, to thank everyone for their co-operation.
I do not think the Amendments will provide any problems in another place. The schedule is a very tight one. We are expecting to give this measure its Third Reading only two or three days before the last day set aside in another place for Private Members' measures. I will not go through in great detail every clause line by line. That was done in another place and I went through them fairly fully during the Second Reading in this House. I shall, of course, be only too happy to do my best to answer questions when we come to the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
With regard to Amendment No. 1, as the Bill is at present drafted it provides that a local authority shall not grant a licence unless an application for it is accompanied by such fee as the authority may stipulate. During our Second Reading debate on 15th June, my noble friend Lord de Clifford drew attention to the fact that one of the principles we should try to agree upon was that the charges for people who wish to keep wild animals in their private grounds or on their premises must not be permitted to fall on the rates, and I think we were all agreed about that. He also felt that the charges
964
made by the local authority for a licence must be kept as reasonable as possible and not be made prohibitive. The same point was made by my noble friend Lord Newall, who expressed himself as being worried about the likelihood that different councils might charge widely differing fees for licensing. He also went on to say that he was not particularly impressed by the precedents which existed under which local authorities had discretion to charge whatever fees they thought appropriate.
In reply to these two criticisms, I undertook to look carefully into the point, although I felt at the time that the policy followed in recent years in regard to local authority licensing fees, which was to leave them to the discretion of the local authorities, had considerable merit. None the less, as a result of the discussions we have had, it became clear that the Department of the Environment, who are particularly concerned in this area, were of the view that it is essential that local authorities should be able to charge fees sufficient to cover their costs, both direct and indirect—their overheads—which are attributed to the service that they are providing. Specified fees and maximum fees have tended to fall far behind inflation, particularly if the means of raising them are cumbersome. It is not thought likely that local authorities will seek to charge a fee wholly inconsistent with the service that they provide; that is to say, they are not likely to use the Dangerous Animals Act—as I hope it will be—as a means of raising money.
The test or the amount of the fee will surely be the reasonableness of it, but in order that the matter should be put beyond any shadow of doubt we came to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to insert into the Bill the words in the Amendment, which are entirely consistent with the general policy on fees, which I have expounded, and I feel that these words go a long way to reassure those who felt doubts that the present wording left too much to the discretion of local authorities. I understand that this Amendment is acceptable to the Government and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord NEWALL: As it is already Friday afternoon, I certainly do not intend to delay your Lordships at all and as my noble friend Lord Chelwood has already

965
said, we are certainly very grateful for the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, in allowing us to cover all the ground in what might be termed a private committee and agreeing these Amendments in a more informal fashion with both Houses. Undoubtedly this has saved a great deal of time on the Floor of the House here and has avoided needless debate and argument. We certainly want this Bill to go through and as regards this Amendment and the other three which we shall deal with shortly, unless there is some vast change of mind I do not think there is any point in my talking on them unnecessarily.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Newall in thanking the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, for his great assistance to us in resolving our difficulties. I welcome this Amendment as it meets most of the points which I made on the subject of licensing and I trust the Committee will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from (" licence; ") to end of line 7 and insert—
(" (iv) the person to whom the licence is granted shall hold a current insurance policy which ensures him and any other person entitled to keep the animal under the authority of the licence against liability for any damage which may be caused by the animal; and
(v) the terms of any such policy shall be satisfactory in the opinion of the authority; ")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 4. I wish to express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his advisers for their assistance in drafting this Amendment so that it met my point. The Amendment deals with the subject of insurance policies. I was not very happy that, as phrased in the Bill, the requirements of insurance covered all the injuries and damage which I felt a person who wished to keep wild animals in his back garden, or wherever it might be, should hold. The effect of this Amendment is to include the liability to damage to property. I am quite satisfied that damage to persons is now covered and the acceptance of this Amendment will
966
extend it to property. The effect of Amendment No. 4 is merely to define the meaning of the term "damage ". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.20 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD moved Amendment No. 3:
Divide Clause 1 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (10) inclusive (Licences) and the second consisting of subsections (11) to (18) inclusive (Provisions supplementary to section 1).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move that Clause 1 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (10) inclusive with the margin title " Licences ", and the second to consist of subsections (11) to (18) inclusive, with the margin title, " Provisions supplementary to Section 1 ". This Amendment is a drafting Amendment, designed to split the already over-long Clause 1 into two parts. At present, Clause 1 covers four pages of the Bill. As I have explained, the first will deal with licences and variations of conditions, and the second will deal with supplementary provisions such as appeals, currency licences and offences. There is no change at all in the substance of the provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation.]:
12.22 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
(" " damage " includes the death of, or injury to, any person; ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is purely consequential on the first Amendment which the Committee have accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Protection of existing keepers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CHELWOOD: I should like to raise one brief point. Anxiety was expressed by my noble friend Lord de Clifford about the 90-day period during which someone who already keeps dangerous wild animals must apply for a licence. Of course, if this Bill reaches the Statute Book—and it looks like having a very good chance of doing so—the period will be much more than 90 days; in fact there will be six months, because there will be 90 days after the Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament before the first day on which it will be necessary to apply for a licence. There will be a period of six months and therefore I think the point is met.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: At this point I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Chelwood. This is most satisfactory. I think that the sooner we get this Bill into operation, the better. I was privileged yesterday to see, in a programme on ATV at 6 o'clock, one example of why this Bill is so necessary. A gentleman from Cradley Heath was seen outside a court to which he had been taken for disturbing the peace, or something of that sort. He had with him four lion cubs, just in the back of an estate car. A more typical example of how badly this Bill is needed one could not wish for. Not only that: on making inquiries, I found that in his back garden this gentleman keeps a puma cub, a fully grown lion, a Bengal tiger cub and the four lion cubs. Let us give this Bill some speed. A period of 90 days may seem a short time to my noble friend, but if I could bring it in tomorrow, I would.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule [Kinds of dangerous wild animals]:
On Question, Whether this shall be the Schedule to the Bill?
Lord ROBERTHALL: I am not an expert on the subject but, like many of your Lordships, I have been in the game
968
parks in East Africa. I was always told that the buffalo was the most dangerous of all animals there. Perhaps we could be told why that is not included in the Schedule.
Lord CHELWOOD: A great deal of care has been taken over a long period to try to make sure that the Schedule is sensible in every way, as it has deliberately been kept brief. There are many very rough and dangerous animals and, for that matter, insects, which could well be included in the Schedule. However, in the opinion of the sponsors of the Bill, it was thought that to make a long Schedule including animals such as the buffalo, which, indeed, is a rough animal, would be unnecessary, simply on the grounds that people do not happen to be in the habit of keeping buffaloes. Where they did so, the Home Secretary has power to add to or subtract from the Schedule, subject to the approval of Parliament. So I am inclined to think that, in spite of the suggestions made about snakes and so on, the Schedule is about right. It can be amended without much difficulty, so I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships.
Schedule agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry to rise at this stage, but, with the indulgence of your Lordships, I will not take up much time. It would be rather churlish of me if I did not say how grateful I am to the noble Lords, Lord Chelwood, Lord Newall and Lord de Clifford, for their very kind observations with respect to myself. This is the second time I have suggested this procedure, where there are difficulties, and where there are likely to be difficulties, in respect of Amendments. As on the former occasion, the difficulties were resolved very quickly, due, in the main, to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, himself was very receptive to forthcoming ideas, to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who raised a good many of the difficulties, but who was eager to find a solution.
I think I may perhaps take what is considered to be an unusual step in your Lordship's Committee, not only in thanking the noble Lord concerned, but in saying how grateful I am—and I am

969
sure the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is also—to my officials who were, as one would expect them to be, extraordinarily able and very helpful.
Lord CHELWOOD: Obviously, it would be ungracious of me if I did not take the opportunity of echoing every word that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Indeed, I have had every possible help with this measure. It came as something quite strange to me, and I have had to brief myself on all kinds of dangerous wild animals, about half of which I have never heard. I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for all the help he, his officials, the experts and the Parliamentary draftsmen gave me when they must have been under heavy pressure. I am sure your Lordships will all agree with everything the noble Lord has said.
House resumed : Bill reported with the Amendments.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL
12.29 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time. When I moved the Second Reading of substantially the same Bill last December, I said that the honourable Member for Argyll, Mr. MacCormick, was intending to use his place in the Ballot to introduce a similar Divorce Bill in another place. This has now happened. We now have in front of us the Divorce (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, which is in fact substantially the same as the Bill we have already seen. In fact, this is the third time that I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill in one year and four days, and it has in fact been on the Order Paper of this House 10 times during that period. In these circumstances, I rather suspect that it would not be against the wishes of the House that I should be reasonably brief. Perhaps it would be sufficient if I were to say this. This Bill lays down the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole basis for divorce. It establishes certain factual situations on which the court is entitled to grant a decree and it makes certain consequential financial arrangements. I think, however, that I should like— as this is a most important
970
subject to all citizens of Scotland—to lay down the purposes we have, and they are so admirably laid down in the words of the Scottish Law Commission in 1967 that I should like to read them. They are:
" To support marriages which have a chance of survival and to give a decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness, to those which arc indubitably dead."
My Lords, if any noble Lord wishes to ask questions I shall be pleased to answer them, but perhaps I might now turn to the changes in the Bill which have been made in the course of discussions in the other place. The first is at the end of Clause 1, in subsection (6). There the burden of proof is changed from the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to proof on balance of probability. The basis of the (shall I say?) semi-criminal standard of proof which was formerly required goes back to the Reformation. At that time to commit adultery was something very close to a crime and it was treated in substantially the same way. Nowadays I think this is wrong, and I am quite certain it is right that the proof should be on balance of probability.
The second point is in the second clause of the Bill, dealing with reconciliation or chances of reconciliation. Under the first subsection the court is entitled to continue the case where it thinks there is a chance of reconciliation. This is strengthened. The court is now placed under an obligation to continue any case which comes before it if it thinks there is a reasonable chance of reconciliation. I am sure this is right. I think it is a much more useful way of doing it than, for instance, making the solicitor ask his client formally, "Have you considered reconciliation? ", which I regard as a substantially useless thing to do.
There is a third amendment, and that is a new Clause 8. This is quite an important change in the Bill. There are three points which I will bring out in this. The first is that the limits on aliment are now increased in regard to the pursuer from £5 a week to£25 a week, in regard to a child from £1.50 a week to £7.50 a week. This I am sure is right, and in line with the changed value of money. The second point is in regard to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. This will now be dealt with in the new summary cause procedure—and I am very glad

971
to see the learned sheriff, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, here from Strathclyde. This is in line with criticism which has been made by the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Finer Committee that the procedure was too elaborate; this procedure will be much less elaborate. Finally, under this clause the Lord Advocate may by Statutory Instrument increase the limits of aliment in line with inflationary forces, if they should continue. I am sure that is right. This new procedure in regard to summary cause procedure will come into operation, I am told, on 1st September, and the Bill, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, will come into operation on 1st January 1977.
There is one Amendment I will move, and I think I should mention this because the Committee stage is to take place next Thursday evening. That is a technical question in order to preserve and make sure that there is reciprocity between England and Scotland in enforcing maintenance orders. This, I think, is right and proper, and we can cleat with this when we come to Committee stage. My Lords, I would add only this. I have been trying to help with this Bill now for 12 months. I have never had any letter of abuse or criticism, but I have had a number of letters giving every encouragement to proceed with this Bill. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—[The Earl of Selkirk.]
12.35 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, your Lordships, having already given your assent to an earlier Divorce Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and having listened to his introductory speech on the present measure, will be familiar with the concepts which underlie the present Bill and with the changes which it will make in the existing system of Scottish divorce law. As my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place during the Second Reading of this Bill, the Government have a broad sympathy with the principles embodied in it and want to see it make progress. The Government believe that a piece of legislation of this kind, which raises
972
matters of vital social, moral and religious concern, should be the subject of free Parliamentary debate at all stages, which can best be done by means of a measure without formal Government sponsorship.
I think it worth mentioning, though, that this Bill, has the support of a large number of representative bodies in Scotland—foremost among them the Church of Scotland—and that public pressure in favour of it, as the noble Earl indicated, has been very strong indeed. It has then, I feel, a very real claim on your Lordships' support. I should like also to give your Lordships notice at this time that the Government intend to put down certain Amendments to the Bill at Committee stage. The details of these Amendments will be explained more fully at that time; but briefly they are intended to put into effect certain recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its recent Report on Liability for Adultery and the Enticement of a Spouse, which was published on 23rd June—that is, after the Bill had received its Third Reading in another place. These recommendations, which were put forward after the circulation of a consultative document to a large number of organisations and representative bodies, are aimed in particular at ending the special liabilities to which a paramour in a divorce action is at present liable under Scots law. These liabilities, which may include the payment to a husband of damages for patrimonial loss, being cited as co-defender in a divorce action and the obligation to pay damages on other than the normal principles governing awards of expenses in civil litigation, are, in the view of the Commission, no longer in line with the realities of present-day society, and accordingly the Government are proposing to take the opportunity afforded by the Divorce Bill to modernise the law in these respects.
12.38 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk upon his persistence in bringing before us a Bill of this kind. As he has reminded us, this is the second time in this Session we have seen this Bill. We are grateful to him for having described to us this morning the differences, that is to say, the changes, that have been made since the Bill was introduced in another place. Your Lordships had an

973
opportunity to consider the drafting as it was when it was first introduced into the other place, and to take it through its various stages in this House; then my noble friend withdrew it in order to see what happened in another place.
It has been clear, from the discussions which we have had in this Session and also when my noble friend introduced a similar Bill in the last Session, that there is no active opposition in your Lordships' House to the principal proposals in the Bill. As my noble friend said, it is based on the principle that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be the basis of divorce, and that in future the law in Scotland should recognise the situation when a marriage is dead, while doing all it can to support marriages that can endure.
This Bill has had the support of the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Law Society, and the Scottish Law Commission. I hope that the changes being suggested by the Government will simply bring up to date—if they are acceptable to your Lordships' House, and we shall study them with care when they come forward—the suggestions of the Scottish Law Commission. The law on divorce in Scotland has, in recent years, been different from the law South of the Border, and this has caused many problems where families, or members of the family, have been domiciled in England and in Scotland. I know of a number of families who will be much relieved when this Bill is enacted if, as seems probable, it will be, because it will end distressing situations arising from the fact that the law at present is different South of the Border from North of the Border. The Bill will bring the two codes of law, Scottish law and English law, much nearer together on the subject of divorce.
There are some who have pointed out that in Scotland since the equivalent Bill became law in England and Wales, there has been a marked increase in the number of divorces. But I would point out to your Lordships that that was to be expected because there were a number of marriages which had ended, which had broken down many years ago, and where the spouses were living apart but were not prepared to seek divorce because of all the distress and pain that could cause to other people, in the way in which such divorces had to go through the courts.
974
I expect that in Scotland there may well be a period when, for the same reason, there will be an increase if this Bill, as I expect, goes through. There has been some anxiety that this Bill could cause more marriages to break up, but I believe that that anxiety can be allayed because the Bill will be dealing with dignity, and without much unnecessary pain and distress, with marriages which are over already; marriages which have broken down and which would, had this Bill already been in force, have led to divorce in the past.
Personally, as you will realise and as I have said on previous occasions when the Bill has been before us, I am glad to see the Bill going through. However, I would remind your Lordships that the attitude of my Party from this Bench is that this is one of those subjects on which we do not seek to influence the views of Conservative Peers as to whether they should support or oppose the Bill.
12.44 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, we are indeed in debt to the noble Earl for his persistence in the presentation and promotion of this measure, which I hope will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I would not dream of boring you, or indeed myself, at this hour on a hot Friday by covering any of the familiar ground which has been covered in debate over the last decade, particularly since the presentation of the English Bill in 1969, but there are two points which ought to be made so far as the history of this measure is concerned.
The first point—and I hope that your Lordships will not feel that this is to flog a dead horse, or to seek to rake over dead ground, a sterile exercise at the best of times—derives from the historical circumstances of the law of divorce in Scotland. For many centuries prior to 1937 the Scottish law on divorce was, in the view of many of us, rather more sensible than that in England. Indeed, it had been so I think since the Reformation. Then, in 1937, with the passage of the Matrimonial Causes Act of that year, England, in the view of some of us, went ahead.
The point is that when that happened in 1937 the situation was restored more or less immediately with the passing of the

975
Divorce (Scotland) Act 1938, which again put the law in the two countries of the United Kingdom more or less on the same footing (subject to certain details which are of no particular moment), and it remained thus until 1969. Then the law in the two parts of the United Kingdom again diverged significantly. That may have been inevitable, but unlike 1937 and 1938 almost seven years have been allowed to roll past, and in Scotland the law is still unreformed. If it is accepted that the reform effected for the English in 1969 was for the good, and if it is accepted that it is undesirable that in this field there should be wide divergence in the law operating in the different parts of the United Kingdom, this delay is surely quite intolerable and, I should have thought, quite unacceptable. That is the first point.
I think that the questions which I would put to the Minister arising out of this point are these: Do the Government accept that in relation to divorce it is desirable that the laws should be on the same general footing in Scotland and in England, subject to our traditional differences in detail of procedure and the like? If so, does the Minister agree that it is deplorable that we should have had to wait seven years for remedial action ? I hope he will not say, " Well, it was a Private Member's Bill " because of course it is well known that there are more ways than one of killing a difficult cat.
The third question is, in the light of the much more effective handling of an analogous situation some 40 years ago, has the Minister, along with his right honourable friend and his right honourable and learned friend, reviewed the matter with a view to avoiding similar delays arising in other areas of equal importance to the people of Scotland? I imagine that he would readily agree that to neglect such a review, after the regrettable history of this situation, would be the reverse of competent government. I venture the view somewhat tentatively that if, over the last decade or two, there had been more meticulous attention to this kind of thing by Scottish Office Ministers there might be less political restlessness in Scotland today.
The second point is a short one, and it arises on jurisdiction. I have a personal
976
interest to declare here because I am the head of one of the sheriff courts in Scotland. In Scotland the Court of Session, the Supreme Court. has exclusive jurisdiction in actions of divorce. In England, as I understand it, the Lord Chancellor has the statutory power to designate county courts which will have jurisdiction in undefended actions of divorce. I venture to regret that there is no provision to an analogous effect in this spirit. It is of course a matter which can be raised on Committee, but really the case is unanswerable for giving similar powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the sheriff courts in Scotland. The hulk of the 50 or 60 sheriff courts in the country could absorb the work without difficulty. No one would suggest that Scottish sheriffs are not competent to deal with this kind of business and it is in my view more than somewhat absurd that so much judicial time should he taken up in the Supreme Court dealing with uncontested actions of divorce.
There are, it is true, one or two of the larger courts, including the one over which I preside, which could not immediately cope with this work with their existing resources, but there can be no dispute—and I should have thought that the Government would regard this as of significance at this time—that if there were the extension of the jurisdiction which I have suggested, there would be some saving of public expenditure in relation to legal aid. Subject to those two points which I commend to the Minister, I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage through this House.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I remember that after a debate we had on abortion some years ago a noble Lord came to me and asked, " Is this a Catholic monopoly or are heretics allowed to take part ?" I ask the same question, but rather differently, today: may someone who is not a Scot take part and someone who, for that matter, is a Catholic and therefore not predisposed to be in favour of easy divorce? Unless I am ruled or voted out of order, I will adduce one or two thoughts. Incidentally, I have six Scottish grandchildren, which perhaps gives me more qualifications to take part than some of those who normally take part in Scottish debates. Be that as it may, I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wants to facilitate divorce.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I did not say anything of the kind, my Lords.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, we were told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, that the Bill would bring divorce closer to the English situation. Is that wrong?
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, that is certainly my understanding; it will bring the law in the two countries, broadly speaking, on to a similar footing. That is what I said.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I refuse to stand corrected by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, until he shows that I am wrong because if it is going to bring it closer to the English situation, it will facilitate divorce. Nobody doubts that the English law has facilitated divorce and nobody doubts that it has led to a great increase in divorce. We had a debate on the family promoted by the right reverend Primate only the other day and while he did not attack the English divorce law, he must have agreed, as everybody else must agree, that the legislation of this country has made divorce much more common; not only easier but more common than it was before and very much more common than anybody expected in this House when the Act was passed. I am simply asking the noble Earl whether this will not make divorce easier in Scotland. The noble Earl said that we could accept that the English law had been beneficial. I do not accept that. However, from the point of view of clarification, will this Bill not make divorce easier and, if so, is the noble Earl in favour of that?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will respond to the three specific questions which were put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. First, he asked whether I thought that the time lapse was disgraceful and my answer is that I could not accept that proposition. I attempted to explain previously that the pace of legislation of this kind should be related to the rate of public and social acceptance of it on the Scottish scene and in my view the pace and timing is about right. The noble and learned Lord asked, secondly, whether I did not think that the speed of legislation generally was too slow and I
978
fully accept that that is a valid point of view. I doubt, however, whether it has any particular relevance to the Bill that is before the House. As to the noble and learned Lord's third point, about the possibility of these divorce cases being taken in the sheriff courts, I must point out to him that this was discussed in the other place—indeed, it was voted on there—and the decision was not to proceed at that point.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his support and I am grateful to him. I have little doubt that the Amendment which he is to bring forward, and about which I know something, will strengthen the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the support he gave and for the picture he gave of the general support in Scotland that the Bill will have; I am most grateful to him. I thought that the historical view given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, was extremely interesting and I would only add to it one point, with which I think he would agree; that is, that it was the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in his Minority Report to the Morton Commission, which set the germ from which the present evolution has followed. I think that the other point which he raised has more to do with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, than with me. I have doubts about putting this case to the sheriff court in the initial stages, partly because I think the Bill will require interpretation and partly because, as the noble and learned Lord knows, sheriff courts vary quite a lot. However, eventually it may be that that will happen. Further, I think that the interpretation of the Bill will require to be homogeneous so far as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, brings advice from Ireland which is always welcome. We in Scotland never have the slightest reluctance in taking advice from anybody, whoever he may be. The noble Earl asked one question: will this make divorce easier? I must admit it is some years since I was in a divorce court and therefore I am not very familiar with what has happened, but from what I have heard in the debate today, the Bill will not make divorce easier in Scotland. I must admit that at the present time it is fairly easy, but I stated in my earlier remarks the object that we had in mind; to

979
strengthen marriages which were worth while and to release marriages which were empty, without humiliation, without degradation and without bitterness. That is the object and I do not think that even the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would disagree that this object is probably worth while.
The Earl of LONGFORD: As the noble Earl has referred to me directly, my Lords, perhaps he will allow me to say that, while objectives of that kind are laudable, in fact all that kind of thing was said when the Act was introduced in this country.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not prepared to say anything about what is happening in regard to the English measure. I have spoken to the Head of the Families Court to try to ascertain how it was going and he did not seem to think that it was going unfavourably. I would not, other than that, wish to pass any remark at all. I again thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question. Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [H.L.]
1 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Regulations in connection with Section 1]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
" (2) Regulations under this section shall be framed so as to allow the prescribed experience to be acquired without undertaking whole-time employment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in my enthusiasm to move my Amendment, I rose somewhat too quickly, but perhaps there was some advantage to the House in having a very short delay in all these matters before proceeding to the detail of
980
my Amendment. I am very hopeful that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment. This is a matter which I raised on Committee. The point that I am anxious to raise is the question of the difficulties that will confront, in particular, women medical students. As the House is aware, this short Bill lays down that, before a man or a woman becomes a general practitioner, he or she will have to undertake three years' prescribed medical experience. However, all this is to be laid down in regulations under Clause 2. Although I appreciate that it is in no way the intention of the Government that there should be discrimination against women medical students, the fact remains that to add a further three years' training will make it very difficult for many women—particularly if they marry and have children. I should like to ensure that the regulations make it quite clear that this prescribed medical training need not be full-time training and that a girl can do a year, have a break and then continue or, alternatively, can work part-time each day rather than full-time. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
I raised the matter before on Committee and I quite appreciate that my Amendment was not very well drafted. However, I have taken further advice, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been most helpful. I hope that, now that it is correctly drafted, he will feel able to accept it. I believe that we are both completely agreed on this point and I do not want to detain the House by speaking further. I beg to move.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, as I spoke briefly when the noble Baroness raised an Amendment which was designed to have a similar effect to this, I should like to say that I support this measure strongly. I see no reason why there should not be arrangements for the experience to be gained in a part-time capacity. All that has to be done is to satisfy the prescribed body or board that one has done the necessary training. It may be that that could be read into the part of the Bill that we have seen—because so much is left to regulations—and I believe that it would strengthen it enormously if the Amendment were incorporated. I strongly support it.
Baroness GITSKELL: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble

981
Baroness on this Amendment. Although I did not hear the whole of the Second Reading debate, I have read it and it seems to me that the Bill still leaves women—especially married women with children—discriminated against, for it is more difficult for those women to indulge in extended training. In fact, that which the Government's Sex Discrimination Act has given to women is taken away by the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Bill. Nine years' training before they can become general practitioners under the National Health Service seems to me to be a handicap for women doctors. Surely we are still suffering from a shortage of women doctors resulting from the original male discrimination in the selection of women medical students. The medical profession is one where I believe more women are needed. It is a profession which is particularly suitable for women and for working outside the family. Therefore, I believe that positive discrimination towards women—particularly married women—is necessary and that no present legislation should hinder reparation for past discrimination.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I intervene to support the Amendment but also to point out that accepting part-time training will be of value not only to women doctors? It is always possible, if one accepts that the experience is to be gained in part-time training for people to do other things and at the same time gain their medical experience. I remember, as a student, one of my lecturers who invariably said, " He knows little of medicine who only medicine knows ". Therefore, I believe that the suggestion that experience should be gained part-time is a very sensible one and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place when the Amendment was called, but the business before your Lordships today has undergone a very recent change and I did not expect that we should be on quite so quickly. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for keeping matters going until I arrived. I know how difficult it is at times and I am very grateful.
I believe that I can deal with this matter quickly but, before I do so, may I be
982
permitted to say a word arising out of what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell has said? This is an attempt to avoid discriminating against women. In fact, I think we could be accused of discriminating in their favour so far as the Amendment is concerned. The whole purpose of the vocational training in the National Health Service is to bring into the Service—and particularly the family doctor side of the Service—more experience and greater ability, for we recognise, as have Governments before us, that the general practitioner is very much in the front line and that it is important to give him or her as much experience as it is possible to get within a reasonable time to deal with the growing numbers of new situations arising in general practice.
We recognise that, notwithstanding the wording of the Amendment, it will take some women much longer to get this type of experience, but there is no way round this and one must bear in mind that many of the women who enter general practice do not themselves want to work full time. Therefore, if one is to try to meet their needs when it comes to training, that will prolong the period of qualification.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, I recognised on Second Reading the depth of feeling of the noble Baroness on this matter. We met subsequently and talked about it fully and frankly and it was easy to see that the noble Baroness was making a point of some substance. I do not feel that I need say more than that there is a recognition of the problem here. We believe that the view of the noble Baroness is met in this wording and all I need add is to say that the Government are quite happy to accept the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, very much indeed for accepting the Amendment and for the great trouble he personally has taken over all this. It will, I know, give great satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has asked me to say how sorry she is that she was not able to be here today, and to other women Members of this House, as to the Medical Woman's Federation, which has been particularly concerned about this point.
I am sure that this is a useful Amendment and one which will, by writing this

983
provision into the Bill, make it absolutely clear that it will be possible to gain the prescribed medical experience part-time or, as it were, intermittently if family circumstances make that desirable, either for a man or a woman. I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to all those who have supported me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS (RESTRICTIONS ON STATEMENTS) ORDER 1976
1.10 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in view of representations which have been made to me this morning, I do not propose to move the Consumer Transactions Order or the Mail Order Transactions (Information) Order, both of which stand in my name on the Order Paper. I must sincerely apologise to any noble Lord who has come here specially for this business, but in the circumstances I feel that it would be better if this matter were left to another day.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in so far as those representations emanated from myself and my noble friends we welcome the withdrawal of these orders for further consideration, and we wish to join in apologising to noble Lords who may be inconvenienced by the fact that we were not able to advance the representations in sufficient strength and in sufficient time to enable the noble Lord to give notice of his withdrawal.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench and I shared the view that we should like the two orders withdrawn, anyway after debate. As the noble Lord is now withdrawing them before debate he is saving the time of the House, and so we can easily forgive him for our being brought here today. We thank him for the apology he made, which we readily accept. We hope that when the representations have been considered as well as, possibly, other representations from other sources, we shall get rather better orders than those now laid before us.

HIGHWAYS (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES 1976
1.12 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN rose to move, That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Highways, (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976 (1976, S.I. No. 621) be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. First, I should like to explain the importance of a matter which sounds rather unexciting. Those of your Lordships who are interested in matters concerning the protection of the environment, or planning, or what is going on in road development in your locality will know already that in many areas there has been considerable disquiet about the procedures under which certain highways inquiries are conducted.
In The Times of 1st July there was a report, part of which I shall quote in order to give the general background to considerations which I shall be putting before the House. The report starts:
" Protestors against disrupt inquiry on M3".
It goes on to say:
" the department's " —
that is, the Department of the Environment
" highways directorate and its road construction units are in trouble. Their procedures are seen as blinkered, arrogant and undemocratic, made worse by the fact that the inquiry inspectors are appointed by and responsible to the department ".
The Report goes on:
" The Government has promised to review inquiry procedures, in conjunction with the Council on Tribunals. Unless it is prepared to concede that inspectors should be independently appointed, preferably from the judiciary, the sort of militant tactics employed at Winchester seem certain to become common ".
My Lords, I am not necessarily associating myself with the expression of view in that report about the appointment of inspectors, nor am I associating myself with the guerrilla tactics of those who sought to disrupt the inquiries. All I wish to draw to the attention of your Lordships is the fact that this inquiry has now been adjourned by the inspector, and one of the reasons why I understand that it has been adjourned is that the objectors have now been permitted to raise the wide question of the fundamental need for the whole of the M3 motorway, and I

985
shall wish to refer later to this question of the need for the road scheme which is being inquired into.
The rules of procedure which we are discussing today flow from Schedule to the Highways Act 1959 which lays down the procedure which governs highway inquiries. These inquiries are con-concerned with orders or schemes pro-prose(' by the Secretary of State for the Environment, or made by local highway authorities and submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Until the present rules were laid down there were no statutory rules at all governing the procedure at such inquiries. Instead, the inspectors who conduct the inquiries, and who are appointed by the Department of the Environment, would conduct the inquiries on the lines of statutory rules of procedure laid down for other planning inquiries—the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1974—and the extent and nature of these rules has been made clear since the Notes for Guidance of Panel Inspectors have at last been published.
Over the past few years the operation of these inquiries has proved unsatisfactory in various respects, some of them quite fundamental, and I have given a recent instance in this regard. In particular the problems have arisen in relation to inquiries into schemes proposed by the Secretary of State himself—motorways or trunk roads.
The first major point I wish to make is that the Highways Act itself places no limits at all on the scope of objections, and this is something which the inspector at the M3 inquiry seems to have recognised, because the Highways Act says:
" After considering any objections to the proposed scheme which are not withdrawn, and, where a local inquiry is held, the report of the person who held the inquiry, the Minister may make or confirm the scheme …"
This wide remit given under the Highways Act has, understandably enough, troubled some inspectors who have not enjoyed hearing objectors criticising the whole scheme on the basis of whether there is any need for it, and at one stage they would permit submissions only as to the line of the proposed road; not as to whether the road was needed, but as to where it should go, presuming that the need was already proved. At the local inquiry
986
into the Denton relief road, the M67, which opened in July 1975, counsel for the Department of the Environment asked the inspector to disregard any evidence or submission with regard to the need for the motorway. That was as recently as July 1975.
There has also been a considerable argument over the right to question traffic forecasts at local inquiries. On this particular point the Government, in their own Consultative Document on Transport, have proposed the setting up of an independent inquiry, and I do not propose to refresh the mind of the noble Baroness about the difficulties of traffic forecasts, but we should be delighted if she is able to give us any report on the progress of that inquiry. Even if the right to question the need were properly established—it seems to me to be recognised but not properly established yet—the present rules that we are discussing today give no guidance whatsoever on this matter. Perhaps I could remind the House that the Expenditure Committee of another place, when examining public expenditure on transport in 1974 at that time recommended at paragraph 59:
"… that the right to challenge the need for a transport scheme at a public inquiry should be firmly established."
The present rules neither implement that suggestion nor offer any clarification as to what the position actually is, although the inspector at the M3 Inquiry has, as it were, done it off his own bat and postponed the inquiry in order for questions of need to be examined.
I could say a lot about various local inquiries but I will not do so. All I will say is that local inquiries are normally concerned with, at the most, only 20 miles or so of the proposed scheme. The Highways Act does not provide any minimum or maximum limit, and therefore if one 20 mile section has been allowed, and the question of need is not allowed to be raised at a subsequent inquiry for another 20 miles, the second and third inquiries will be fruitless because the first inquiry, if limited to 20 miles or so, might be considered to have prejudged the whole issue.
That is the background. On 20th January the Minister of Planning and Local Government announced in another

987
place that his Department would be making a full review of the procedures in connection with highway schemes, and that this review would be carried out in conjunction with the Council on Tribunals. On the day the present rules were published, 18th May, it was made known to the Friends of the Earth that the Council on the Tribunals had no idea what the review it was meant to be conducting could include because they said:
" It is not clear to the Council at the present time how the review is to be conducted. So there is considerable uncertainty as to what is actually going on ".
The rules that we are talking about had been published before any review with the Council on Tribunals. Therefore I suggest there are serious objections to the rules themselves. First, they do not alleviate any of the problems which now have arisen at local inquiries. They make no improvements; they simply put into statutory form the principles on which inspectors have already been conducting inquiries, and do not attempt to resolve any of the main issues. Secondly, the laying down of these rules in the form of a Statutory Instrument may give a false sense of confidence that the problems relating to these inquiries have been at least partially solved, whereas these rules are merely fossilising an already unsatisfactory situation.
The fixing of these rules in the form of a Statutory Instrument may affect the review and prejudice its scope. The review may feel itself confined to simple amendments of these rules, while most of the problems in connection with these inquiries cannot be solved by simple amendments. It would be rash to attempt to extend this debate into fields too far outside the scope of the rules themselves; but I suggest to your Lordships that the questions that these rules attempt to deal with are really much more than technical. When a question arises as to where a new road should go, it may well raise more than purely local or regional matters. I feel that there is something to be said for examining the whole procedure in the way we are dealing with these matters. The Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, when they were considering this type of area in the Session 1972-73, had some proposals put to them by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I do not saythat what the noble Lord was suggesting
988
at that time—mainly in connection with Bills regarding reservoirs— is wholly relevant to the fundamental questions of the rules which we are talking about today.
The rules that we are talking about today concern the wide ranging matters he dealt with and there is a respectable parallel. I will quote from three parts of paragraphs in the Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation. At paragraph 60 the Committe said:
" Lord Molson raised a matter of importance which concerns both Ministerial orders and Private Bills. He argued that during the last few years the requirements of public authorities for land have enormously increased, in response to the growing demand by the public for the provision of services such as housing, water, gas, electricity and roads; and at the same time there has been a growth in public concern to protect the environment, which is often adversely affected by the works necessary for the provision of these services.
This conflict of public interest raises the question whether Parliament should devise new procedures to resolve issues of general public importance which arise as a result of this conflict, while at the same time reconciling public demand and needs fairly with the private rights of individuals."
I submit that is very much what we are talking about when looking at these rules. It went on to say :
" Lord Molson contends that there should be a procedure for Parliamentary control over projects which are carried out by local orders or administrative decisions... neither of which are at present subject to any procedure of Parliamentary scrutiny or control."
The third quotation is from the Committee's conclusions:
" Your Committee are of the opinion that the matters raised by Lord Molson are sufficiently important to establish the need for a review of the procedure for objecting to legislation and delegated legislation of a Private Bill nature."
It may be that in the two Committees that I hope will be set up to look into the procedure and practice of Parliament that such matters can be examined. I will not trespass on that ground today. I will ask the noble Baroness whether she will give us some form of undertaking that in the Government's consideration of these matters they will not rule out at least the possibility of evolving some new Parliamentary procedure for dealing with what has become a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I want to put some detailed questions to the noble Baroness of which I have given her Department—if not herself—some notice. Before I do so, I want to attempt

989
to put my finger on the point of principle. To me, the point of principle is: Are people in the sort of situations to which these inquiries are addressed to be governed by bureaucrats, appointed by themselves and accountable only to the Minister, or is some more open, fair and new procedure, preferably involving Parliament itself in the form of a Select Committee, to be evolved? I submit to your Lordships that it is quite wrong for environmental pressure groups to attempt to decide all these matters themselves, and I would not he wanting to suggest that they should; but I submit to your lordships that it is equally wrong, if not more so, that questions of enormous consequence to people living in an area, which may raise more general and wider issues, should be decided in the manner in which they are decided today.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness to give us some information about the attempts that the Government are making to resolve the present muddle. I would ask: On what date will the review which has been announced begin? When is it expected to report? Could the noble Baroness give us some idea of the terms of reference of the review; and will those terms of reference include the possibility of completely redrafting the rules that we have been discussing today, and even the possibility of redrafting the Highways Acts themselves, or will such possibilities be excluded? Will the review consider the situation at trunk road inquiries where the authority promoting the scheme is also its final judge ? Will the review examine the question of the removal of control of inspectors from the Department of the Environment to the Lord Chancellor's Office, as was recommended by the Franks Report on Tribunals and Inquiries ? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will have a little to say on that subject. What will be the composition of the review body? In what form will the review make known its recommendations ? Finally, what arrangements have the Government made for representations from non-Government bodies to be made to the review?
We cannot settle all these questions today, especially because this review has not yet started work; but I would suggest to your Lordships that we are looking at something of more than mere technical interest, and that the Department will find that Parliament, at both ends of the
990
Palace of Westminster will take a continuing interest in ensuring that the procedures whose rules we are examining today are radically reformed to make them fairer to those whom they affect. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976 (1976, S.I. No. 721) be annulled.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
1.33 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan said in his well-reasoned speech in support of his Prayer, the present procedure for highway inquiries derives essentially from Schedule 1 to the 1959 Highways Act, which was itself a consolidation of earlier legislation. The Statutory Instrument on Tribunals and Inquiries, which came into force on the 10th June, adds nothing new to the law on highway tribunals, but simply codifies existing practice based on the principles laid down in the 1959 Act. Indeed, my Lords, if we were to annul this Instrument, our so doing would have no effect whatsoever on the law of the land or on the future conduct of highway inquiries. In order to do that, it would be necessary to modify the 1959 Act itself. It is true that, after the disruption of the Airedale Inquiry at Shipley, the Government decided to undertake a fundamental review of the highway inquiry procedure. No doubt at some future date the results of that review will be laid before Parliament. But, my Lords, a law does not cease to exist, nor is its status in any way diminished, merely because its operation is under review by civil servants. It is possible that Parliament might decide, after considering the results of the review, to make certain changes in the law, but that is wholly hypothetical; it in no way weakens the force of the law as it now stands.
Why, then, one might ask, publish an Instrument in the first place? Until recently it was possible for such inquiries to be conducted in a spirit of discretionary latitude. But when we consider the way in which recent inquiries have developed, we might well suggest to the Government that it would have been more relevant to circularise chief constables on policing

991
arrangements than to publish new regulations. What we have witnessed at Shipley and Hornchurch, and what we have been witnessing at Winchester, cannot be dealt with merely by defining procedures which have hitherto been left to the inspectors' discretion. Those who have disrupted recent road inquiries are not trying to reform road inquiry procedure; they are, quite simply, bent on making it impossible to hold road inquiries at all.
The review of highway inquiry procedure raises important questions. Hitherto, highway inquiries have been concerned primarily with the interests of statutory objectors; that is, local authorities and those whose property is directly affected. I submit that this is as it should be. It has been suggested that future highway inquiries should be turned into debates on transport policy, that Ministry officials should be cross-examined on the world's supply of fossil fuels in the 21st century, and other such fascinating questions. No one can deny the importance of these topics, nor the need for an extensive public debate on them; but if we are to take democratic decisions about national transport issues and policy, then this must be done in Parliament. Furthermore, in a sense, local highway inquiries have more important matters to consider. If everyone is side-tracked into arguing about car ownership forecasts for the 1990s, then the vital interests of those whose homes and livelihood are directly affected will not receive adequate attention ; and it would be unfortunate if, in their considerations of future procedure, those reviewing the present position devoted all their energies to the relevance of national policy matters in future inquiries, because there are undoubtedly ways in which future highway inquiries could be conducted to give even more rights to those who are directly affected by proposed new schemes.
Disquiet has been expressed in the past that local objectors have little chance against the full resources of the Department of the Environment. It has indeed been suggested that Ministry officials have at times in the past been adopting an arrogant attitude, and have treated the inquiry procedure as a trifling ritual preliminary to the serious business of actually doing what they had always
992
intended to do. Of course, as we have discovered in our relations with Iceland, it is not always an advantage to be obviously the larger or more powerful of two contending parties. There is no doubt that in recent years the techniques of pressure group politics have been developed to a fine art, and the publics natural, healthy sympathy for the underdog. mingled with a certain understandable pleasure in seeing bureaucrats discomfited, is a major advantage which almost all pressure groups enjoy automatically. But if your Lordships will forgive me a hackneyed phrase, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It is very important that local interests be given ample notice of forthcoming inquiries, and also all the information they could possibly require. Also, it is no reflection on the competence or probity of previous inquiry chairmen to say that public confidence in them would be even higher if they were appointed, not by the Department of the Environment but from a list controlled by the Lord Chancellor's Office. It is to be hoped that full consideration is given to all these matters in the present review.
Considerable public disquiet has been aroused this week by the course of the M3 inquiry held at Winchester, and I feel it is only right that we should touch upon this matter in our discussions today. Not the least extraordinary of the scenes which have unfolded for the benefit of television cameras was the spectacle of Winchester Lower boys apparently rioting in the very presence of their headmaster; and the hiring of itinerant protestors who travel from one motorway inquiry to another. What the great William of Wykeham and other past Wykehamists must think of the level the college has descended to in order to make their point makes the mind boggle.
These protestors clearly carry a duplicating machine in their luggage, however, because at Winchester those whom they considered sympathetic were given a large quantity of documentation, including several pages of procedural points. Early on page 1, there is a very useful instruction to demonstrators:
" When people are making the same points, say Hear, Hear! ' or give three cheers ".
One must pay tribute to the writer's concern that his fellow protestors should not be at a loss for something to say.

993
The document also refers frequently to the ideas of a Mr. John Tyme who is, I believe, a lecturer at Sheffield University and has a deep personal knowledge of the people of Winchester and a close involvement with their traffic problems. Mr. Tyme has, no doubt, made considerable personal sacrifices for his cause, and not the least of these is his modesty and reticence; because if he is willing to have his name mentioned as frequently as he is referred to in this document he must otherwise be a person of quite extraordinary vanity. But it must be very useful if in a protest like this all the demonstrators are of one mind—very convenient for rehearsals.
The document indeed goes so far as to claim that the whole inquiry is illegal; but if Mr. Tyme and his supporters really believe that, then all they need to do is to seek redress in the courts. They have made great play with the cost of legal actions, but I would like to know how much the daily bill from " Rentacrowd " amounts to, and I strongly suspect that counsel would come cheaper. But it is not only " ideas ", if one can call them that, that these thoughtful organisers have provided for their followers. Under the heading " A few useful phrases " we find: " Rubbish ", " Go home young man ", " We don't trust the DoE ", " Rhubarb ", and " General Who ? ". In a sense all this is very amusing. It has the charming ingenuity of an undergraduate prank, and would appear at first sight to have about as much importance.
But, my Lords, three successive motorway inquiries have been broken up by these methods. Not only that, but when the resources of chanting and catcalling are exhausted, there are always uglier tactics. I am sure that it is unnecessary to remind noble Lords of the disorder and violence at the Airedale inquiry at Shipley; and, this week at Winchester, observers from the British Road Federation have been spat upon, jostled and assaulted—although those doing so were always careful to present a charming face to the television cameras. I am afraid that all this seems to me to have very little to do with local people and local interests. In its mindless, stereotyped orchestration it reminds me of nothing so much as the chorus of sheep in Animal Farm.
My Lords, I do not wish to express any view as to whether the new road which the
994
Winchester inquiry is considering should or should not be constructed. Any proposal which might in the slightest degree impair the timeless and tranquil beauty of one of the loveliest of our cities, with its ancient foundations devoted to learning and to religion, with its fine old English houses set in perfect English countryside: anything which might prevent our descendants from enjoying what we now enjoy, must be examined with minute and exacting care, and all its implications considered. A properly conducted public inquiry with full opportunity for discussion, is of the highest importance: there can indeed have been few road inquiries of comparable importance.
But, my Lords, the beauty of Winchester is not the only issue involved in this inquiry; because what we are witnessing in the disruption of the Winchester inquiry is nothing less than an attack on the rule of law. A properly constituted, legal, orderly inquiry procedure is being reduced to a shambles by a small group of mobile, determined and highly-organised wreckers. This is another symptom, albeit small, of declining respect for the authority of Parliament—which is, after all, democracy—and for the due processes of law.
1.44 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has used this occasion to make a strong attack on the behaviour of people who have been involved as objectors in the Winchester inquiry and has made some fun of the behaviour of the scholars of Winchester College, I think. But I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is doing some disservice to the House because I should have thought that it was not in dispute that the procedure under which we conduct highway inquiries in this country has given rise to grave and serious dissatisfaction in many quarters, and in many quarters of authority, over a long period. Anybody who has been engaged as I have from time to time, in acting for people in the conduct of an inquiry, in acting for an objector or for others in, inquiries of this kind, must be aware of the fact that at almost every inquiry of this kind the gravest doubt is being expressed by the people taking part in it as to the impartiality of the procedure. If it be a fact,

995
as it is a fact, that we have had these scenes of violence in parts of the country and protests against the inquiry itself, then I suggest the lesson we should learn is not to read lectures to people about behaviour in public but to inquire whether there is indeed any basis for the complaints these people make.
I would suggest that there is very ample ground for objections to the way in which we conduct these highway inquiries today. I think that that dissatisfaction derives from two factors. These have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, but I beg leave of the House to refer to them again. The first factor is this. All too often, the matter which is being investigated at these highway inquiries, the proposal they have before them, is a proposal made by the Department of the Environment itself. In other cases, the Department of the Environment appears in support of a scheme or a plan proposed by a local highway authority. On those occasions the Department of the Environment instruct their own counsel and solicitor, they call their own witnesses in support of the proposal and they present their case to an inspector who has been appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Is it really unreasonable that objectors to that scheme should think they are in front of a " set up " court, that they are not going to have a fair hearing? If the promoters of the scheme, the judge or inspector who is going to make his report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the counsel, the solicitor who presents the case and the witnesses called all come from the Department of the Environment and, eventually, when the inspector reports he reports to the Secretary of State for the Environment on his own scheme, is it in any way surprising that people should regard that as a " fixed " court and feel that they are not going to get a impartial hearing for their case?
The second thing that is discovered by the people who seek to object to proposals of this kind at highway inquiries, is this; they are not allowed, first, to challenge what are called the general Government principles. I will revert to that in a moment. The second thing they find out—this is what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said earlier—is that they are
996
obliged to confine their attention to a short strip of road between two fixed points A and B determined in advance and they are precluded officially from making any inquiry into the need for that road in the wider context of the Government transport policy.
The third thing that they find out is that, under present procedures, objectors on amenity grounds, objectors who are not statutory objectors, can be heard at all by the inspector only at his discretion. Is it surprising that people take a rather adverse view of inquiries of that kind? As to the limitation that they are only allowed to look at a few miles of road between A and B, I was engaged on an inquiry in the earlier part of 1974 and the report on this from the inspector of the inquiry was produced only very recently. That planning inquiry concerned a proposal by the Department of the Environment to run a dual carriageway road virtually up to motorway standard through the heart of the City of Plymouth. This inquiry, I may say, as might be expected, lasted for no less than about 34 working days. As your Lordships may suppose, there were forceful objections against the policy of the Department of the Environment in driving a dual carriageway road right through the heart of the city, when the general policy of the Government throughout the country is to by-pass cities and villages by means of motorways and the like.
We were not allowed to investigate the general policy under which that proposal was being made. Strictly speaking, we were not entitled to inquire as to what else the Department of the Environment was going to do in the counties of Devon and Cornwall in order to meet transport needs. But what did emerge—and it is not uninteresting in this connection—was that this building of what was virtually a motorway road through Plymouth and joining up with the Tamar Bridge was part of a general trunk road running from London to Penzance. The road, when it met the Tamar Bridge, would be carried on right down to Bodmin and eventually to Land's End.
We sought to challenge the need for this road, and the answer we got from the Department of the Environment was that this was tied up with a proposal of the Department to build a similar dual

997
carriageway road between the same two points; that is Exeter and Bodmin. Therefore, under their plan there would be eventually two roads of dual carriageway width, one running to the North of Dartmoor through Launceston to Bodmin, and the other one going through the heart of Plymouth and the Tamar Bridge and down to Bodmin: in other words, to the same two points.
We sought to argue that this was a most prodigal waste of resources—to build two roads between the same two points—and that the Government ought to make up their minds whether they were definitely going to go for the Northern route, in which case the Southern route would not be necessary at all. But we were told that we could not examine at such an inquiry the propriety and wisdom of building two such roads between the same two points. We were not allowed to challenge that in any way: its wisdom had to be accepted.
So these are now the serious limitations imposed on inquiries of this kind. As has been rightly pointed out, what is proposed here in these rules is to give statutory form to what have been the procedures in the past. What is disturbing to me and to others holding these views is that these rules, far from mitigating the faults of the present situation, far from extending the opportunity for objectors to make their case known and far from seeking to give a greater appearance of impartiality to inquiries of this kind, give the imprimatur of statutory sanction to the existing procedures which are so unsatisfactory.
The noble Baroness will forgive me if I have got it wrong, but, as I understand these rules, they represent merely the reproduction of existing practices and offer no mitigation of the faults of those practices as they stand today. Under these rules, the inspectors will continue to be the appointed persons of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will continue to be represented at the inquiry by counsel and solicitor. The Department of the Environment will continue to present the case through its witness or witnesses in favour of the scheme which the Department is itself promoting, and the only persons who will be allowed to appear at these inquiries as objectors are statutory objectors. Those objectors who object upon general grounds of amenity will he allowed to appear and be heard only at the discretion of the inspector.
998
Finally, if objectors seek to cross-examine witnesses for the Department of the Environment, they will be allowed to do so only if they confine themselves to matters other than matters of Government policy.
As the noble Baroness will know, there is no definition in these rules as to what is meant by " public policy ". The matter is dealt with in section 6(2), where it says:
" The Secretary of State shall make a representative available at the inquiry to give evidence in elucidation of the statement referred to in rule 5"—
that is the preliminary statement they have to give out before the inquiry starts
"… and such representative shall be subject to cross-examination to the same extent as other witnesses, so, however, that the appointed person shall disallow any question which in his opinion is directed to the merits of government policy ".
If you want to know about " Government policy " you will not find any help from those rules. You have to look at the document to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, referred earlier: that is the Notes for the Guidance of Panel Inspectors, issued by the Department of the Environment in 1974. I should like to read, if I may, from paragraph 1.24 of those notes of guidance, because they are still valid and operative. What has happened is that these rules have been superimposed upon those notes of guidance. That paragraph reads:
" The policy statement circulated to objectors 28 days before the opening of the inquiry defines as follows the policy issues for which Ministers are directly answerable to Parliament and which, in consequence, are inappropriate for consideration at local inquiries ".
They then went on to say that these matters of public policy included four categories. Before going on to read out those four categories—because I shall criticise one of them but not the other three—may I concede at once that of course it would be intolerable if, at every local inquiry into a proposed highway, it was open to objectors to raise overall matters of transport policy. I would concede at once that it would be intolerable if these inquiries were to be extended into eternity; but my interpretation of the limitation put upon objectors by these notes of guidance is that they include one factor that on no account should be excluded from such examination.
The first of the four categories is:
" the allocation of resources between different transport modes ".

999
By that, I take it, is meant roads, railways and so on. I accept that that, as a principle, is obviously right. The next one is the objectives of the programme:
"… to develop and maintain a national network of motorways and other trunk roads between the major centres of population ",
and so on. In other words, you cannot challenge the general network policy which has now been part of the Government's programme for 15 or 20 years, and I accept that that is a reasonable limitation. If I may, I will now quote the fourth, because this is acceptable. It states:
"… the design standards which are appropriate to various ranges of traffic volumes and speeds ".
What that means is that the Ministry of Transport, or the Department of the Environment, have laid down certain standards for motorways, dual carriageways and so on, and they rightly insist that any road should he up to the standard which is applicable. I think that those are all reasonable matters which can be reserved to Parliament and to the Department.
The one which I criticise is the third, which states that you cannot cross-examine upon:
" the general assumptions made by the Government about the availability and price of fuel and the broad effects which these factors will have on traffic growth ".
I suggest that this raises matters of an entirely different character from matters of policy. When you attend an inquiry of this kind, you are confronted with all kinds of extrapolations, forecasts and projections by the Department of the Environment as to what the fuel situation will be in the year 1980 and what the growth in the traffic flow in different places is likely to be. What you are confronted with is not a declaration of policy; you are confronted with the Government's guess as to what will be the facts in 10, 12 or 15 years' time. That is a consideration of an entirely different character from a matter of Government policy.
I suggest to the House that the comment which was made by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in its 1974 Report on Public Expenditure on Transport was right. What they said was this:
"… the right to challenge the need for a transport scheme at a public inquiry should be firmly established. It should allow consideration … of the traffic forecasts which underline proposals ".
1000
So there you have a direct conflict between the Select Committee considering this matter, and what these rules are now trying to impose upon us.
If I may revert to my experience at that road inquiry in Plymouth two years' ago, we were presented with a multiplicity of forecasts and extrapolations as to what would be the traffic flows in the years 1980 and 2000, coming from all kinds of different sources. Plymouth City Council had their own extrapolation which differed fundamentally from those of the Department of the Environment; and, indeed, one witness from the Department of the Environment was in favour of one extrapolation, while another was in favour of a different one. It is absolutely intolerable that objectors to a scheme who say, " There is no need for this " should not be allowed to challenge not the policy, but the assumptions of fact which the Department of the Environment choose to make.
I am sorry to go on so long, but in my view the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has today, at the fag-end of the week, raised a matter of considerable public importance. I conclude by making three suggestions. I fully support what has been said—and this is, indeed, the nub of the matter—by the Franks Committee and by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that the only way in which one can make it clear to the ordinary objector that he is not appearing before a court which has been fixed, the only way he will feel that he is getting an impartial hearing, is by transferring the making of rules of this kind and the whole control of the procedure at highway inquiries to the Department of the Lord Chancellor.
This was specifically considered by the Franks Committee and I should like to quote to the House what they said, which was:
" Some may say that (transfer of control of inspectors to the Lord Chancellor) would be a change in name only, but we feel no need to argue the point because we are convinced that here the appearance is what matters. This change, by no longer identifying the inspector in the minds of the objectors with the Department of the deciding Minister, would emphasise impartiality at an important stage of the adjudication and thus do much to allay public misgiving. We see in this no obstacle to the inspectors being kept in close contact with developments of policy in the Departments responsible for the subject-matter of the enquiries ".

1001
So the Franks Committee fully considered the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no objection to transferring it to the Lord Chancellor, and much would be gained. That recommendation is wholly ignored in the rules which we now have in front of us.
Secondly, it must be established, in my submission, that serious objectors upon amenity grounds who do not happen to be statutory objectors—and I shall not weary the House with the distinction between the two—must be allowed to appear before these tribunals and inquiries as of right, and not at the discretion of the inspector. The third requirement is that there should be a new definition of what is Government policy and what is excluded from consideration at such inquiries; those matters upon which objectors have no right to cross-examine the representatives of the Ministry. Those are three ways in which I suggest that we can achieve a substantial improvement in our present procedures, and get rid of many of the dissatisfactions, and much of the disapproval, which have been expressed at inquiries of this kind.
I cannot understand why, when this review of these procedures is to take place, the Government should have thought it necessary to bring forward these regulations at this stage. They do not add anything to the present situation. They merely prejudice the situation by preempting the decision of the review committee. There was no need to produce these regulations in order to bring some kind of order out of chaos. The chaos is there already and these rules merely confirm it. I cannot understand why the Government should have taken it into their heads, unless there is a plot in the Department of the Environment to try to get these rules given statutory force before the review can take place. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, shakes her head at that, and of course I would not expect her to admit it. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why it was necessary to produce rules which are merely a reproduction of the procedures which exist today, unless there was some other and more sinister purpose in the minds of those who did it.
I hope that the noble Baroness will give full consideration to this proposal for the annulment of this order, and I respectfully
1002
say to her that if it were annulled nothing would be lost. We should just be where we were before, only the review committee would have an opportunity of considering the matter without prejudice, and without their decision having been pre-empted in advance.
2.9 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a most important subject. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for having given us the opportunity of discussing it even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said a moment ago, it is at the fag-end of a very heavy week's work. I think it is a scandal that a matter of this intense importance should be dealt with in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, quoted a number of pertinent remarks from a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who has given a great deal of attention to problems of this kind over the last few years and who has also given much valuable advice to your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, is President of the Council for the Protection of Rural England which is particularly concerned with this matter and has already indicated to the Department of the Environment that it is very worried by some of the proposals.
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is quite right in saying that an attempt is now being made to give statutory effect to a set of rules which apply only to one type of inquiry when they are not in a state in which statutory effect ought to be given to them. Your Lordships ought to throw out this set of rules until the Government have thoroughly looked at the matter and established the situation in which rules should be put upon the Statute Book.
In both this House and another place we have been arguing for weeks about the Police Bill because the community as a whole realise that the Bill is needed to prevent the police from being judges in their own affairs. The situation here is exactly parallel. The inspectors are appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and have the power to tell counsel that they must not cross-examine witnesses along certain lines because it would be contrary to the policy of their chief. Your Lordships are aware that

1003
the citizens of this community are beginnng to get fed up to the teeth, to use a colloquialism, with this kind of conduct. Why do you stop a man from cross-examining a witness? That is how the cross-examiner shows the inherent weakness and folly of the matter which is being examined by the tribunal.
Time after time the noble Lord, Lord Foot, gave us examples. There is the particularly famous or, if you like, infamous case of the A606 inquiry in the Lake District which lasted for well over a month. The proposal was that the A606 trunk road should be expanded. Now it is in the process of being expanded, and some of the most beautiful scenery in the British Isles is being ruined before people's eyes as they go along those roads. This was Ministry policy. Distinguished Queen's Counsel were at the Penrith inquiry and put forward the view which amenity societies were saying was wrong and which afterwards an important Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, proved conclusively to have been wrong all the way through. By that time, however, the rocks were being blasted and the new road was in the process of being made.
I do not believe that this kind of situation ought to be allowed to develop and the best way for your Lordships to prevent it developing is to say, " We are not going to give the effect of Statute to these rough and tumble rules which have been worked out in a hit and miss kind of way over the years". Then the Government would have to go back and start again.
Would not it be a good idea to ask the noble Lord, Lord Franks, who has just retired from his Oxford college and who looked at this matter in the most valuable way quite a long time ago now, to look at it again and examine the whole situation? It is well over 10 years since this happened and to a large extent it happened because I well remember the Lord Chancellor of the day telling me that some of the proposals that I was making, which the Franks Committee afterwards thoroughly endorsed. were not administratively practicable. That is the kind of way in which Whitehall evades these essential and sensitive problems which it ought to be tackling in a much more effective way.
1004
The Council on Tribunals has been referred to and a very pertinent observation was made about it by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. However, it does not appear, although I hope it will appear in the Government's speech at the end, but I shall be surprised if it is a satisfactory appearance, that the Council on Tribunals has ever been given the opportunity to look at this question. How can we possibly allow these rules to become part of the Statute Law of the country when a committee which has been given the job of reporting on these kind of problems has never had the matter properly put before it ? Enough has been said this afternoon to blow these rules out of your Lordships' Chamber and I hope that that line can be followed.
2.16 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, first of all I want to express, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who made these rules of procedure, his regrets that he is unable to be here today to address you on this Motion and to say that, for my part as representative of perhaps the major user interest in the Rules. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for drawing attention to them, and to the Lord Chancellor for this opportunity to explain to you something of the history and background which led to the making of these formal rules of procedure, since I think that it might be helpful to your Lordships. I have a feeling, though, that I am batting on a somewhat sticky wicket.
The Rules prescribed the procedures to be followed at local inquiries into schemes and orders under the Highways Acts 1959 to 1971 relating to the construction or improvement of motorways and other trunk roads or classified roads, including the construction of road bridges over, or tunnels under, navigable water courses. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has pointed to some respects in which he considers the Rules to be deficient and I will come to these later on.
As your Lordships know, we are now reviewing the procedures generally in connection with these inquiries, in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, and I expect that we shall find some scope for improvement notwithstanding that the present procedures are well established

1005
and have been reasonably successful over a good number of years. But I do not think that we should undervalue the basic strength of the present arrangements simply because we can see room for improvement. I would suggest to your Lordships that it would be in nobody's interest to discard the present rules in a desire for perfection, and with them the very important safeguards which they offer as of right to the ordinary objector in putting forward the arguments which he feels the Secretary of State for the Environment ought to take into account in reaching his decisions on particular proposals under inquiry.
I have gained the impression that some of the criticisms which have been made today, and on some other recent occasions in the media and elsewhere, seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the intended purposes of highways inquiries. Under the provisions of Section 7 of the Highways Act 1959, the Secretary of State is given the responsiblility for keeping the national system of trunk roads under review and, for extending, improving and reorganising it as he considers necessary, taking into consideration the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture. This is a responsibility which he must exercise himself. He is certainly not authorised to delegate it to any inspector he appoints to hold a local inquiry.
Contrary to views which appear to be fairly widely held, these Highways Act inquiries are essentially a part of a progressive administrative process by which the Secretary of State becomes fully informed on all the considerations which he should take into account in reaching his decision. He takes into account the requirements of local and national planning, and of agriculture and navigation, by direct consultations with the other Government Departments, local authorities and other statutory bodies concerned, and other organisations with an important general public interest in his proposals, before he publishes the proposals in the form of draft schemes or orders and lays them open to objection by the public at large.
The purpose of the local inquiry is to consider all the objections which are not withdrawn, to provide objectors with a reasonable opportunity to put forward their
1006
views and to establish the facts about the more local considerations which, within the framework of national transport policy, the Secretary of State should take into account. The Secretary of State has discretion to dispense with an inquiry where there are no unwithdrawn objections from persons specified in the First Schedule to the Highways Act 1959 where he is satisfied that in the circumstances of the case the holding of such an inquiry is unnecessary. After considering any objections to the proposed order which are not withdrawn and, where a local inquiry is held, the report of the person who held the inquiry, the Secretary of State may make or confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and other noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the possibility of the appointment of inspectors by the Lord Chancellor. At present the position is that the inspectors for the trunk road inquiries are selected from a fee paid panel by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. The suggestion that inspectors who conduct these inquiries should be under the control of the Lord Chancellor's Office has been considered from time to time and when the matter was last reviewed in 1972 the present arrangements were endorsed by the Council on Tribunals. There would be practical difficulties in transferring the panel as suggested. It might, for example, foster the impression that the process is judicial when in fact the inspector's task is to report to the Secretary of State, who must take the final decision, and if the report is to be useful to the Secretary of State in arriving at the right decision the inspector must be aware of, and take into account, the Secretary of State's overall policies. This would still require frequent contact between those responsible for the panel and the Department of the Environment, and for this reason it might not be accepted for any length of time that the change, if we were to make it, was more than just one of name.
The important considerations are the calibre, the competence and the professional integrity of the individual inspectors, and it is difficult to see how this would be affected by altering the arrangements for appointing them. Nevertheless, it is one of the points that we shall be

1007
looking at again in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, as part of the review procedures, and I can assure your Lordships that it will be given careful consideration.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I have lost my copy of the rules because they have gone up to the Hansard Office, but my recollection is that in the definition clause, which I think is clause 2, in the definition of terms it is said at the very beginning—I think it is on the right-hand side:
" The ' appointed person ' means a person appointed by the Secretary of State ".
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, if it is correct that those persons for the future—and, indeed, I gather in the past—have in fact been selected by the Secretary of State from a panel produced by the Lord Chancellor, would it not be proper to put it in the definition clause? According to these rules as they stand the Secretary of State has not got to consult with the Lord Chancellor at all. That is what the rules say. It means he can appoint anybody he likes.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point but I am sure the appointments that are going on under these rules that are before us now are going to be made in the same way as they have been hitherto, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. We have no desire to depart from that and I will draw the point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord O'HAGAN: Too late, my Lords.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are going to have some reviews and it can be taken into account when the review is made.
Successive Ministers of Transport have taken the view that the intended purpose of the inquiry would be most likely to be achieved in a relaxed atmosphere which would encourage the ordinary objector, whose property was likely to be affected by the road proposals but who did not know much about the technicalities of road
1008
construction or design, to present his arguments in his own way without having to comply with any formalised procedures. The Ministry of Transport, now part of the Department of the Environment, in carrying out the pre-inquiry and post-inquiry procedures, and the inspector in conducting the inquiry, observed the spirit of the rules of procedure which had been made by the Lord Chancellor for other administrative inquiries, notably the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order inquiries which are sometimes taken concurrently with Highways Act inquiries. These arrangements worked satisfactorily for many years, although the absence of formal rules was the subject of complaints from time to time to the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Council on Tribunals.
As I have explained, the Secretary of State's resistance to the adoption of formal rules was conditioned by a desire, in the interests of the objectors, not to encourage the development of these administrative inquiries on legalistic lines. But with the increasing complexity and length of major motorway inquiries in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and an increasing disposition for the employment of Counsel, the proceedings inevitably became more formal and in May 1975 the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lay in having formal rules for these classes of inquiries. After consultations with other Government Departments and the associations of local authorities with responsibilities for similar inquiries, and also the Law Societies and Council on Tribunals, the Lord Chancellor was invited to exercise his discretionary powers under Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 to make statutory rules of procedure for these inquiries.
These are the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules which are embodied in the Statutory Instrument 1976 No. 721 which has been lying in both Houses since 18 May and came into operation on 10 June. They are based on the same principles as the formal rules which have been made for other administrative inquiries, and in consequence largely formalise existing procedures. Where changes have been made, these have been in the interest of the objectors; for example, in the obligations of Government Departments to make witnesses available to attend the inquiry and in giving rights to

1009
objectors, after the inquiry, to inspect any documents, photographs or plans appended to the Inspector's report.
The particular points which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has given as his reasons for this Motion do not involve any change in established practice. In making his first point, which is essentially about the extent to which the need for a road is debatable at a local inquiry, he no doubt had in mind the provision in Rule 6 sub-paragraph 2 of the Rules that the inspector shall disallow any question at the inquiry which, in his opinion, is directed to the merits of Government's policy. I went into this matter at considerable length in this House in response to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on 25 February, and I do not think that I can usefully add to what I said on that occasion except to point out that this is a provision which is well established and appears in the Rules of Procedure which have been made for all other forms of administrative inquiry.
I think that no one would dispute that fairness requires that those whose individual rights and interests are likely to be affected by particular road scheme should know in good time before the local inquiry, the case which they will have to meet; and, as the final decision is that of the Secretary of State who must take into account considerations of public policy, some statement indicating the policy relevant to the particular case should also be available to objectors. This was the view expressed by the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries in 1957, and endorsed by the Council on Tribunals on several subsequent occasions.
It is argued that objectors so informed would be able to direct their arguments not only to the merits or demerits of the particular case, but also to other considerations likely to weigh with the Secretary of State. On the other hand, as the Franks Committee and Council on Tribunals also recognised, broad policy is something over which Ministers are answerable to Parliament and it is not helpful to objectors, inspectors or the Secretary of State that the whole spectrum of national policy should be automatically open to debate in the restricted forum of a local inquiry. Within this constraint, the Secretary of State does his best to satisfy the legitimate needs of objectors by circulating with the
1010
detailed statement of case required under the Rules, a separate explanation of his trunk road policy.
Departmental witnesses are available at the local inquiry to explain the background of this national policy and to discuss its application to the particular scheme, but not to enter into debate about the merits of the national policy itself. But while this conditions the contribution which the Departmental witnesses can make at the inquiry, it does not restrict the nature of objections that may be made by objectors to the proposals. It remains at the discretion of the inspector as provided for in the Rules, to hear any argument he thinks fit.
On the other hand, the detailed statement of case required to be served on objectors under Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure, embraces all the considerations which the Secretary of State wishes to put forward at the inquiry, and this includes the traffic and other local considerations relevant to the need for the road. These matters are certainly debateable at the local inquiry and the Departmental witnesses are available for cross-examination on them. I hope that this will reassure the noble Lord on this particular point he has made.
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's further point about the definition of statutory objector, for the purposes of these Rules of Procedure, and the relationship with the Highways Act 1959, perhaps I should explain that this definition of " statutory objector " lists, in effect, the statutory bodies and persons (that is to say, persons with an identifiable property interest in the proposals) who are referred to in the First Schedule to the Highways Act 1959 as having the right to be served with documents and to be heard at the inquiry; and in addition, the definition endeavours to give some precision to the reference in the Schedule to any other person appearing to the Minister (now the Secretary of State) to be affected by the proposals.
This precision is given by listing in the statutory definition, owners, lessees and occupiers of land likely to be required for the execution of the highways works and persons who, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, are likely to be entitled to compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of

1011
the use of any of the highway works. It is true that organisations or parties without an identifiable direct interest in the proposals are not included in this definition. If we were to depart from this legal line of demarcation it is difficult to know at which point we should stop. I can assure your Lordships that this is no impediment to objectors at large since it is the established practice that all persons who duly object to the proposals, whether or not statutory, and who appear to have an interest in the matter, are able to make their objections.
Representations have already been made on the question of the review to the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Council on Tribunals. They included over 40 suggestions for improving procedures. Obviously, these need to be very carefully considered. We have received representations from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Conservation Society, the Civic Trust, the Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000 in the North West, the Greater Manchester Transport Action Group, the Cambridge Civic Trust, the Aire Valley Preservation Society, among many others. I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will not feel at all inhibited, and that he will also make the very thorough representations he has made in this House today so that they can be considered at the same time.
My Lords, those are areas following from the internal review we have started following the Statement of my honourable and learned friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. He made his announcement, following criticisms of the information and facilities provided to objectors at these inquiries. He said then that in consultation with the Council on Tribunals he would see what could be done to improve the intelligibility of the information, and to make the arrangements more generally acceptable to all concerned. The provision of the present Rules of Procedure is the first important step in this direction, and other ways of improving the arrangements are also being explored. I cannot give your Lordships any firm indication of when the review will be completed, or what the outcome might be. That will depend on the consultations with the Council on
1012
Tribunals and any other consultative arrangements which might be agreed. But it is always possible that a review of this sort will throw up some matters which have a bearing on the present rules, and the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he will amend the rules as necessary when the review has been completed.
So the position today is that there are now well-precedented statutory Rules of Procedure in operation for inquiries into schemes and orders made under the Highways Acts. These meet requests which have been made to the Council on Tribunals over a number of years by organisations closely involved in the inquiry system. They bring the highways inquiries into line with other major administrative inquiries, by providing a uniform framework for dealing with matters in connection with them, and I would suggest to your Lordships that this is manifestly in the interest of all concerned. Furthermore, the arrangements are flexible. As the Lord Chancellor has made clear, the rules will be adjusted as necessary in the light of experience.
It is inevitable that we have to have these public inquiries. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I very much regret the way in which the inspectors at some of the recent inquiries have been hampered in doing their job. But it is necessary that we have the widest possible consultation. It is necessary that all those who want to object legitimately have the right to object. On those grounds, I would ask the House, in the light of my assurance that the rules will be amended as the review proceeds, not to accede to the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
2.38 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and in particular, if I may do so without impertinence, I should like to thank the noble Baroness who has just replied for the Government for dealing with this question at such short notice. I found what she had to say in reply to the various questions put by other noble Lords and myself interesting but I can hardly say that I found her reply very satisfactory because—and perhaps this was understandable—the noble

1013
Baroness did not address herself to the basic point. The basic point is that we have a clash here between justice and the interests of the administrative convenience within Government Departments.
The noble Baroness illustrated this very aptly, because she said that before these rules were introduced, consultations had taken place as to whether they were necessary. The noble Baroness listed people who had been consulted: other Government Departments, local authorities—but did the list go on? Did the list include amenity bodies, or the National Trust? Did it include the Council for the Preservation of Rural England? Of course not.
The rules of the inquiries and tribunals which we are discussing today obviously raise points of both local and national importance. It is manifestly absurd for every local tribunal or inquiry to raise matters of Government policy, whether or not the definition of " Government policy could be altered to make it more sensible as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. But the justification that the noble Baroness gave for maintaining the status quo was not that the procedure itself needed looking at, but that it was impossible, however you amended the the procedure to make it sensible, for those who are objecting to some local proposal to raise questions of national importance. That is what is wrong: that the procedure which these rules are now fossilising is itself wrong, and what is wrong cannot be resolved merely by putting rules on the Statute Book.
If, as is likely from time to time, major questions of national and even international interest are likely to crop up at local inquiries of various sorts—and this is bound to go on happening; however many policemen are brought into these inquiries, people will want to go on raising these questions and feel dissatisfied when they cannot—it is not enough to say that the rules are flexible, that they can be looked at from time to time and we have set up an inquiry to make sure this is done. What is necessary—and the Department must surely take this on board—is that people concerned with the implications of national transport policy for areas of special beauty or with particular concerns about the effects on their own
1014
particular environment must be able to object at a stage at which their objections can be taken into account, before the juggernaut of the national transport policy crushes them and their views without any consideration being given.
My Lords, I do not intend to press this Motion today because it would really do little good to do so; the rules would continue to be applied whether or not these were rejected by your Lordships. But I suggest, in withdrawing my Motion, that your Lordships continue to press the various empires within the Department of the Environment to examine what they are doing between themselves, to make sure that in the evolution of national transport policy they are not merely consulting with other Departments, not merely consulting with the local authorities; that they seek to devise, and make sure it is implemented, some form of inquiry that enables the concerns that motivate people who have been protesting, perhaps too violently, at recent inquiries to be expressed in a reasonable way, and with time for those expressions of view to be considered seriously. May I conclude by again thanking everybody who has taken part in this debate, and warning them that I may call on them to take part in others. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE: WEEK-END COLLECTIONS
Lord MANCROFT Lord MANCROFT asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the increased cost of abandoning the Saturday collection of mail and restoring the Sunday collection.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): This is a matter for the Post Office. I have asked the Managing Director Posts to write to the noble Lord on the point raised.

UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG SCHOOL LEAVERS
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give the figures regionally, of the school leavers who are unemployed and the period of unemployment, distinguishing between boys and girls.
Lord JACQUES: Regional totals of school leavers under age 18 registered as unemployed on 10th June were as follows:

Boys

Girls

Total

South-East and East Anglia

15,552

11,189

26,741

South-West

4,986

3,663

8,649

1016

Boys

Girls

Total

Midlands

8,948

7,215

16,163

Yorks and Humber

7,673

6,391

14,064

North-West

13,735

10,386

24,121

North

8,686

7,190

15,876

Scotland

3,735

2,962

6,697

Wales

3,086

2,800

5,886

GB

66,401

51,796

118,197

I regret that the statistics analysing the unemployed register by age and duration of unemployment, which are collected half-yearly (in January and July) do not distinguish school leavers from other unemployed persons.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before three o'clock.