Sitting of 30 June 1977

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

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  BRITISH LINEN BANK ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his talks with the EEC and Ministers on the Common Fisheries Policy.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the dissatisfaction still existing in the fishing industry due to other countries overfishing in British coastal waters, he will make a statement on the latest situation within the industry.
    Mr. Beithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made towards securing exclusive British fishing limits within the EEC.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I refer the
    520
    hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the statement made in the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he reported on the proceedings of the special Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 27th June.
    Mr. Wall: Why has the Minister abandoned the industry's demand for a 50-mile exclusive zone, which had support on both sides of the House? Is it not strange that the present proposals for a 12-mile exclusive zone, plus special concessions in the outer zone, are exactly what the Commissioners have been prepared to concede for some time?
    Mr. Silkin: To take the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question first, it is not at all the same thing. The Commission has talked of a vague continuation of the present arrangements for the narrow belt. That is six miles, not 12 miles, and not exclusive. As for the preference, the Commission is talking about a local preference that goes out nowhere near 50 miles, but here and there around the coast for local inshore fishermen, no more than that. Our proposal is a very different matter.
    To deal with the first part of the question, the proposals that have been aired in the Council make it clear that the variable belt proposal of up to 50 miles remains as that laid on the table on 4th May last year. We are trying to remove a logjam. As I said last Thursday, if we can get our essential objectives by any other method that preserves those objectives, that is what we intend to do. However, the original proposals lie on the table.
    Mr. Beith: Even if the catch requirements of the British fishing industry are wholly met under the sort of regime that is being discussed, how does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the concurrent responsibility for conservation that is in the scheme can possibly work? Why concede in any way the present un-diminished right of this country to exercise its own non-discriminatory conservation measures within our waters?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very important point. From the very beginning, from the Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill 1976, I have said over and over again that we must not let

    521
    go on the issue of preserving our national conservation measures. What took place in Luxembourg until a late hour earlier this week shows exactly what I mean. When it came to the scientific evidence, which was unassailable, that there must be a ban on herring fishing for the rest of the year if the herring stock is to survive, we were virtually in a minority of one. It seems to me that that is an essential element that must be maintained.
    The second essential element is that we must have powers of control and enforcement within our own waters. With that I entirely agree. The third point is that we must preserve distant water fishing on a reciprocal basis to the best of our ability. Those three objectives still remain paramount in my mind.
    Mr. James Johnson: Following our exchanges yesterday, is my right hon. Friend able to enlarge on the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? I am certain that he said that there are sister States in the Community that are more than willing to accept the natural justice of our case for a coastal band of up to 50 miles. Is my right hon. Friend as optimistic as that?
    Secondly, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said today about the distant water fleet, which is still of great importance to Humberside, as he well knows, does he envisage that if we do not get acceptances in Iceland and elsewhere there could be some form of invasion, so to speak, of mackerel fishing off the southwest peninsula, which we all fear, from the distant water fleet coming into inshore waters?
    Mr. Silkin: Without proper planning, that is a danger. The distant water fishing effect on mackerel might be disastrous. In that event, it might be the next species to be endangered. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was saying was absolutely accurate. For whatever reason it may be, be it theological or political, or any reason that we care to put forward, the fact that we said that we were prepared to consider other methods caused a slight thawing of the attitudes of some member countries, but not all. The disappointing factor, which is one that we must always guard against, is that which my right hon. Friend pointed out at the Coun-
    522
    cil at that time, namely, that we are providing out of our waters—and they are our waters—two-thirds of the fish stock available to member States of the Community. We need a dominant priority in that respect, and member States need to recognise that contribution. I was a little disappointed that that point was not met as strongly as it should have been by other member States.
    Mr. Clegg: Was there any discussion about the Icelandic situation? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the deep resentment that is felt in fishing ports, especially those which used to fish off Iceland, at the advantageous terms that Iceland has for imports into the Community? Was there any suggestion that those imports from Iceland should be banned until Iceland became reasonable and came to the negotiating table?
    Mr. Silkin: The question of Iceland was not immediately relevant to the discussions in the Council. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a Question later on the Order Paper about the negotiations with Iceland. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have consistently made that point to Commissioner Gundelach.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has abandoned the industry's claim to a 50-mile management zone? This seems to us the only way of protecting resources from greed and rapaciousness. If he is saying that, does he not think that he would have been better advised to have made it absolutely clear in the debate last week?
    Mr. Silkin: The Opposition Front Bench must get clear in their minds and tell the House in due course—I do not expect them to do it now—exactly what they mean. Let us see what they have been saying. This is the same Opposition Front Bench, given a resignation here and there, that signed the Treaty of Accession. Depending on which audience they are speaking to and which question is being discussed, they use three possible lines of argument, or three bases. They talk about an exclusive zone, the implication being purely exclusive fishing, a management zone, or an exclusive management zone. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about a management

    523
    zone. There is a great difference betweeen them. I am talking about an exclusive zone plus a dominant priority plus national conservation measures plus reciprocal rights in deep waters.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is our business to ask questions and his, unfortunately, to answer them? If he were to do that it would be a welcome change for all of us. First, will he answer the question that I have asked? Secondly, if, as he constantly claims, we failed to make proper arrangements for fisheries, why did his colleagues not renegotiate the fisheries policy when renegotiation was in process?
    Mr. Silkin: I answered the question, but I will answer it again. On the second point, what does the right hon. Gentleman think I am doing now but renegotiating the mess that he and his colleagues got us into?
    On the first part of the question, I should make it clear that the objectives remain the same. There was always the fishing industry's idea based on a 50-mile exclusive zone, which meant that literally only United Kingdom fishermen would be allowed to fish in that zone; there was the United Kingdom Government's idea of the variable belt; and there was the third idea of a totally exclusive belt up to 12 miles and then a dominant priority. These are all methods of obtaining the objectives. I cannot believe that there is anything wrong with discussing whether we can break the logjam which, unless we do break it, on the basis of the Treaty of Accession has foreign fishermen fishing up to our beaches in 1982.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed very long answers on these Questions. I realise that the House is deeply interested, but we shall have to move more quickly on other Questions.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement about the future of the pig industry.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the actions of the EEC
    524
    Commission with regard to aid for the United Kingdom pig industry.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to assist the United Kingdom pig industry.
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the EEC Commission's actions under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession will have on the pig industry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have secured a succession of Community measures to help our pig industry. The combined effect of these measures is to reduce significantly the level of payment on our pigmeat imports. For bacon imports payments are £86 per metric ton lower than they would otherwise have been. These measures, along with the recent improvement in the scheme of aids to private storage and increases in restitutions on Community exports to third countries, should help our pigmeat processing industry and strengthen our pig market. All this is helpful as far as it goes, but I have made it clear that it is not enough. What is needed is a fairer method of calculating monetary compensatory amounts in this sector, and I am continuing to press for this.
    Mr. Body: Does the Minister realise that many pig producers still do not appreciate that he has his hand fettered in the matter of monetary compensatory amounts? Will he make it clear that it does not rest only with him whether the MCAs are to be realigned?
    Secondly, will he explain to pig producers that as long as there is a surplus of pigs in the Community and we are locked inside the common agricultural policy and all that implies there cannot be much hope for the expansion of home production?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that there can be much hope for the expansion of home production on the basis on which the hon. Gentleman was speaking. The fact is that we have been caught partly in our own normal British pig cycle as well as in a European pig cycle.
    On the question of MCAs, the real villain of the piece is the high cost of cereals. I think that all pig producers

    525
    know that. We are trying to tackle that problem.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real evil has been his refusal to look at the value of the green pound? His pandering for urban votes by depressing food prices has resulted in the pig industry's being sold down the river by the Government. Is he prepared to negoiate a change in the value of the green pound in exchange for a change in the calculation of the MCAs?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the second helpful suggestion would have quite the effect that the hon. Gentleman thinks it would. It is not a question of a green pound devaluation one way or the other, even if we could confine it to the pig issue and forget every other issue involved. If we simply devalue the green pound on a reasonable basis—I am not talking about the whole 30 per cent., because no one would go for that, but about 10 per cent.—in pure arithmetic, the cereal costs would outweigh it, or there would be so little difference that it would not be worth while. That is not the answer. The answer is a recalculation of the MCAs.
    Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition have themselves to blame for the situation in the pig industry and, indeed, in many other sectors of agriculture, in as much as they took us into the EEC and accepted a common agricultural policy which ties the hands of the British pig farmer and other farmers and denies my right hon. Friend and the Government the right to assist the pig industry and other industries? Will he therefore take steps to change completely and basically the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Silkin: I have been taking some steps to change the common agricultural policy. However, I want to be fair to the Opposition. In fact, they are not altogether to blame for the pigmeat crisis. What is wrong is the basis of calculation of the MCAs. I think that on the whole they would probably agree with me about that. What I resent is that when I provide a national aid that results in £17 million going to British pig producers and am taken to court for it I do not get the whole-hearted support that I would like from the Opposition.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that we are somewhat surprised to hear him repeat today what he said before about the effect of the green pound devaluation on the pig industry? Has he seen the spirited rebuttals of those remarks by leaders of the pig producers, who say that devaluation of the green pound would dramatically help them? In view of this difference, will he consider having a joint meeting with the leaders of the pig producers and putting out a joint statement afterwards so that we may know whether they are right or he is?
    Mr. Silkin: They accepted my arithmetic. That is perfectly true. They said that in one of the statements I have seen. They draw somewhat different conclusions from it. What they cannot dispute with me is that there is a cereal balance in this. But I, in turn, ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on one question. If a devaluation of the green pound is the answer to the problems of British pig producers, why are the Danes and the Dutch so keen on our doing it?

    Agriculture Industry
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the facilities for training within the horticulture industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): There has lately been a marked increase in the demand for horticultural training facilities, and I am assured that the Agricultural Training Board has effectively responded to this.
    Mr. Spicer: Are the Government planning severe cuts in grants to the Agricultural Training Board with respect to horticultural training, and, if so, why?
    Mr. Strang: No, the Government are not planning any severe cuts in grants. The Agricultural Training Board increased its number of apprentices by 700 last year—a very creditable performance. It is true that the Board has announced that it will have to reduce to a limited extent the grant that it pays to employers in this sphere.
    Mr. Loyden: Will my hon. Friend say whether consideration has been given to job creation in the horticulture industry?

    527
    Would it not be in line with the policy of "Food from our own resources" to approach local authorities that have available land and to start job creation schemes in those areas? Would this not meet the twin policies of the Government at this time?
    Mr. Strang: That is a very valuable suggestion from my hon. Friend. My experience in my constituency is that these job creation schemes can play a vital r61e in a whole number of spheres. I can think of no more important role than increasing our food production.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister agree that increased horticultural production in the Western Isles could substantially improve the prospects there? Will he ensure that adequate courses are available within the Western Isles, particularly at the new extention to the college of education there, to enable young people to come into this industry—something that could play a very valuable part in increasing prosperity in that part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Strang: The provision of educational facilities is a matter for education Ministers, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Agricultural Training Board takes the view, quite rightly, that it should concentrate its emphasis in the future on the direct provision of training facilities rather than the payment of grants to employers to take on apprentices.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that current agricultural produce polices are adequate to cover increased costs.
    Mr. Strang: The price decisions taken this year will provide a substantial improvement in the level of support for our farmers. Actual returns will, of course, depend on a variety of factors, including the weather.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister satisfied that farming profits are such as to allow sufficient investment to meet the objective of the Government's own White Paper, "Food from our own resources", namely, a 2·5 per cent. increase in food production and a saving of about half a billion pounds in food import costs? Secondly,
    528
    what is his Department's reaction to Mr. Gunderlach's criticism of the White Paper policy?
    Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he rejects any criticism from Commissioner Gunderlach in relation to the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fairly stringent remarks that my right hon. Friend has expressed on that matter.
    We cannot predetermine the level of profitability. It is certainly true that the drought last year had an adverse effect overall on the level of farm profits. What we can do is to provide adequate farm support prices, and the very significant increases that we have been able to achieve there augur well for the future.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the farmers, who are beginning to complain about the common agricultural policy, the consumers in this country have every right to complain about this policy? Does he further agree that whatever our attitude to the Common Market we should try to scrap the common agricultural policy, which is working to the disadvantage of housewives in this country as well as that of the farming community?
    Mr. Strang: I think that we should try to achieve fundamental changes in the common agricultural policy. It is because of the great importance that we attach to the need to hold down food prices that we fought so hard to minimise the increase in common prices at this year's agricultural price fixing. In consequence of that, the overall effect of the common agricultural policy on food prices this year will be less than 3 per cent.
    Mr. Bulmer: As long as industry can recover its cost increases and agriculture is prevented from doing so, will the Minister explain how he sees the gap between average earnings in industry and average earnings in agriculture being reduced?
    Mr. Strang: I do not think that it can be reasonably argued that anyone is preventing the agriculture industry from making higher profits. It will continue to make progress by investment and by increasing productivity.
    As to earnings, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to farm workers' earnings

    529
    there is a Question on that subject later on the Order Paper, but I can assure him that we still take the view that farm workers' earnings are deplorably low in relation to those of other sectors of the community.

    Beef Production
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the returns so far achieved this year and with the prospects within the beef producing sector of the industry.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the current viability of beef producers.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable fear within the industry that the returns, come winter and spring, will be too low, due to an inadequate target price? Bearing in mind the replies of his right hon. Friend, will the Minister consider the suggestion made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and agree that a devaluation of the green pound could correct the position? This could be beneficial in the beef sector and could also benefit the pig sector.
    Mr. Bishop: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows our policy with regard to devaluation of the green pound, but apart from that I draw his attention to the fact that the returns this year are, on average, 14 per cent. higher than a year ago. That was the position at mid-June. As to the future, the level of prices in March next will be £32 per live hundredweight. There is every reason, therefore, for confidence.
    Mr. Hardy: Is it not the case that we appear to be approaching the low point or the world beef production cycle? If that is so, will the Minister consider taking some initiative in the autumn? Above all, will he continue to ensure that Britain presses for the acceptance of these islands as the principal grassland producers of Western Europe?
    Mr. Bishop: I think that my hon. Friend's last point is an important one,
    530
    because the future of the beef industry depends not only on the Government's policy but on the industry itself, with a better use of grassland, a better use of resources, better investment, and other aids towards productivity.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Has the Minister read the recent report from the little NEDC that production is dropping in every sector? Has the Minister observed that over the last two years of Socialist administration the consumer has not been getting the total amount of food from British farms that is required? Will he look at this matter again and see that the report is studied very carefully by his Department, and that incentives are given to rectify this position?
    Mr. Bishop: It was the hon. Gentleman's party who got rid of the fatstock guarantee. It was my right hon. Friend who, two years ago, put a floor in the market with the beef premium scheme, with intervention only as a fall-back. If the Opposition Front Bench had had its way it would have accepted the Commission's proposals, which would have meant that there would be a review of the premium scheme by July. Now we have a guarantee that this will continue at least until the end of the 1977–78 period. This should give confidence to the producers.

    Fishing Limits
    Mr. Luceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press for a time limit to negotiations for an equitable Internal Fisheries Régime within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
    Mr. John Silkin: I fully accept the urgency, but I doubt whether there would be advantage in pressing for a time limit.
    Mr. Luce: In view of the growing and intense pressures on the British fishing industry, is not there a case for setting a time limit? In this context, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government support the phasing out of historic right zones in the six to 12-mile limit, in view of their very firm commitment to maintaining an exclusive 12-mile limit in the negotiations?
    Mr. Silkin: It is our policy that the historic rights should be phased out— and, incidentally not necessarily only in

    531
    our own narrow waters but in those of other countries, where some of our fishermen also do their fishing.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the difficulty seems to me to be this: if any time limit is set, whether it be 1st August or 1st September, what happens when it is reached? We are trying to meet a situation in which a Council of nine members has to agree unanimously to something, and that is a very difficult proposition.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that when the Tory Government dragged an unwilling Britain into the Common Market they were accepting a theme of free movement of capital and labour, which presumably means free movement of fishes and fishing boats from whichever country in the Community they come? Is not the logical answer—in line with the policy of the Tribune Group— to declare that the Common Market is an unmitigated disaster and to get Britain out? That must be the campaign not only of us but of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Silkin: I can only answer for my departmental duties as they are at present, and my departmental duties do not include my taking Britain out of the Common Market single handed. I must therefore deal with what I have, and what I have is what was left to us by Conservative Members. That means doing the best I can in extremely difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Powell: With regard to the phasing out of historic rights within the 12-mile limit, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government pay particular attention to the peculiar situation prevailing in the waters around Ulster, so as to ensure that the same rights are enjoyed by all United Kingdom fishermen?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir.

    Farmers' Unions
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the presidents of the farmers' unions.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have no specific plans for a meeting with the presidents, but my Department keeps in close touch with the industry on matters of interest.
    Mr. Miller: In view of the fact that the French Government, through their controlling organisations, have once more closed their markets to our export of sheepmeat—causing price difficulties for our producers and even leading, perhaps, to the export of more live animals to France—will the Secretary of State be able to report to the presidents when he next meets them any action that is taken towards securing an interim sheepmeat régime in the CAP?
    Mr. Silkin: That is a very difficult question. This is a personal view, and I may be proved wrong, but I doubt whether there are any proposals for an interim régime capable of being accepted by all nine members of the Council. What I suspect will happen is that a little later in the autumn we shall get proposals for a definitive régime.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the next time he meets the farmers' unions leaders it is important that he discusses ways of implementing the fulfilment of the policy "Food from Our Own Resources" so that farmers can plan on a longer-term basis? Does he further agree that over the last two or three years there has been considerable uncertainty in farming circles as to how exactly they can plan for the future?
    Mr. Skinner: Watch these Liberal lawyers.
    Mr. Silkin: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) says. Of course, despite what was said a moment ago, the Labour Government are not totally responsible for the drought two years in succession, and that had some effect on "Food from Our Own Resources". What I intend to do is to get an urgent up-dating of that White Paper. I should like to keep it continually under review so that whether one goes for a 2·5 per cent. projection or whatever one will always have some degree of certainty for farmers.
    Mr. Spearing: When my right hon. Friend next meets the presidents of the farmers' unions will he point out that if the Government accept their advice to phase out the MCAs the level of imported wheat would rise from about £50 a ton to about £80 a ton? That would thus give a

    533
    price to the wholesalers of this country of roughly two or three times the world price, which would be a cost to the British consumer and a gain to the farmer, and the farmer alone.
    Mr. Silkin: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I said a moment ago in answer to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that the high cereal prices was the villain of this piece. The fact is that this is what makes life difficult in some sections of the livestock industry and, indeed, for consumers as well.
    Mr. Peyton: We all welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that "Food from our own resources" is going to be brought up to date. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to make absolutely clear in its successor how the laudable aims which are expressed are to be brought about?
    Mr. Silkin: Certainly. "Food from our own resources" was certainly based upon one proposition that is incontrovertible—it was written on the basis either of our continuing in the Common Market or of our leaving the Common Market. Some of the White Paper will have to have the position totally updated and will include a number of plans. Incidentally, I would also want it to deal more fully with horticulture than its predecessor did.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Wigginasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy since he assumed office as President of the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Strang: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) yesterday when he set out the main decisions on agriculture and food taken within the European Community during the United Kingdom Presidency.
    Mr. Wiggin: Since I did not see the answer to the Question I can only take it that it was nothing. Will the Minister spell out to the House what actual achievements he can record in the last six months, rather than what he is negotiating?
    Mr. Strang: That would take a very long time. I think that Mr. Speaker would object if I were to spell out the list of achievements that we have set on record. I would isolate the most important one, which in my view is that the great weakness of the CAP is that it has set farm and food prices at far too high a level. In the last price fixing we held down the increase in common prices to 3½ per cent., which represented a fall, in real terms, in other member States. That represents the beginning of a very important change in the CAP. Furthermore, by securing a wholly Community-financed butter subsidy we made it clear that when there are surpluses they should be used to the benefit of our own consumers.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable amount of substance in the policy that was agreed by all the Socialist Members of the Nine? If he accepts that, will he deny the rumour that is going around, which is perpetrated by the Tribune Group, that we wish to get out of the Common Market? Will my hon. Friend state whether the Department agrees that we would be better off in or out?
    Mr. Strang: I can inform my hon. Friend that it is not the Government's policy to take Britain out of the Common Market. I can also inform my hon. Friend that we see considerable merit in some of the proposals put forward by him and his Socialist colleagues in the European Assembly. Furthermore, I can assure him that we have already set out on the road which he and his colleagues would like us to follow in this respect.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the Common Market agricultural policy permit France to prohibit imports of sheepmeat from Britain while apparently preventing Britain from prohibiting imports of pig-meat from Denmark, in both cases when the respective Governments believe their own industry to be threatened? If that is in accordance with the CAP, will the Minister try to negotiate the same freedom for us that the French apparently enjoy under the same policy?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman probably appreciates that there is a common regime that encompasses pigmeat but that

    535
    there is no common regime that encompasses sheepmeat. Sheep is still outside the CAP. That is why we fix our own guaranteed price with deficiency payments and the rest.

    East Anglian Horticulture Station
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the establishment of the proposed East Anglian Experimental Horticulture Station.
    Mr. Strang: As my right hon. Friend, the Minister's predecessor, informed my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on 6th August 1976, this project has been postponed as one of the Government's economy measures.
    Mr. Crouch: Can the Minister give an assurance to myself and to the House that this project has not been abandoned? Would he at least care to confirm that there will be no let-up in the amount of research and development that is so necessary in horticulture?
    Mr. Strang: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman strongly on the latter point. With regard to his former point, I can tell him that we believe that there is still a strong case for an experimental horticulture station in East Anglia and that it is simply an unfortunate casualty of the policy of containing public expenditure. However, it is still our intention to establish one.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with the President of the EEC Commission concerning the price of food in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Silkin: I have had no discussions personally with the President of the EEC Commission.
    Mr. Marten: Although I recognise, as most people do, that if there were another referendum today the result would be reversed—
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.
    Mr. Marten:—and that therefore the Common Market propaganda machine, which includes most of the British Press,
    536
    has to go into action to try to justify the Common Market, nevertheless will the Minister tell Mr. Roy Jenkins, when he next comes to London to make speeches such as the one he made on 10th May of this year, that he should not try to fool the British public—[Interruption.]— with selected figures trying to show that the Common Market—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it is the hon. Gentleman's own fault for saying on television last night that he was not interrupted. But I ask the House to allow the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to put his supplementary question.
    Mr. Marten: I recognise that I am getting under the skins of some people—
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Too long.
    Mr. Marten: Mr. Jenkins used selective figures to try to show that the Common Market had not put up the price of food, when everyone in the country knows that it has caused a significant increase in the price of food and that there is cheaper food to be had outside the Common Market.
    Mr. Silkin: I do not know whether I shall have an opportunity to have rather long discussions with the President of the EEC Commission when he next comes to London—in fact, I believe that he is in London at the moment—but I do not think that it can seriously be argued in this House that the general price support levels and, therefore, the price of food in the Community are not extremely high. That was the whole purpose of the exercise of the last price review. I remember the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on one occasion eliciting from me that under the transitional steps the price of butter was liable to go up by 17p or 19p a pound before the end of the year. The whole basis of our attack and the getting of the butter subsidy was to try to prevent that happening. We can only keep up the pressure.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the submission by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is that his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) had a dream called "Entering

    537
    the Common Market" which has now turned out to be a nightmare, and that the burden of this nightmare, which has become a reality, is being borne by millions of people in rapid price increases which would have been much higher had it not been for the efforts of my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Silkin: We can on the Government Benches claim a great deal of credit for the fact that the price review finally decided was the lowest since we entered the Common Market. We can also point out that the rather optimistic accounts —I put it no higher than that—given to us at the time of entering the Common Market concerning the increase in food prices have proved totally unfounded.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister agree that the British Presidency of the Council, in contrast to that of the Commission, has gone downhill all the way since 1st January and that the same applies to the Agricultural Council? Will the right hon. Gentleman redeem it a bit by admitting that it is not the CAP that is responsible for the bulk of food price increases but other factors?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not agree at all with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and certainly I do not agree about the Agricultural Council, where a change has taken place which, although it may not be very palatable to a number of our colleagues in Europe, is now a definite fact. I repeat what I have pointed out on a number of occasions. This was the first time that consumers were able to talk to the President of the Agricultural Council. A total sea change is taking place.
    As regards the hon. Gentleman's second point, one of the basic facts that he must realise is that although it is true that since April CAP prices have not gone up much, because of our fight, they were inordinately high before.
    Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Roy Jenkins will he draw to his attention the fact that his speech on 10th May was an attempt to whitewash the very real fact that food prices have gone up as a result of the transitional arrangements following our entry into the Common Market? Will he also point out that Mr. Roy Jenkins, contrary to what some of his friends on this side
    538
    of the House say, deliberately attempted to mislead the British people in that speech about the movement of food prices?
    Mr. Silkin: There is one thing that must be said about Mr. Roy Jenkins. I gather that he also has taken the view that prices in the Common Market should not be allowed to rise. That means two things. The first is that he will, I hope, fight for us in our battle. The second is that he recognises that prices are too high.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Ql. Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 30th June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at the final session of the meeting of the European Council and was later host at a lunch for participants in the meeting. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. McCrindle: On this last day of the British Presidency in Europe, does not the Prime Minister rather regret that in the eyes of the country and the EEC the past six months have been characterised much less by initiatives and achievements on the part of this country and much more by a resurgence of anti-European feeling within his own party?
    The Prime Minister: The six months of the British Presidency have been marked by a very efficient conduct of business and by progress in a number of areas, at least one or two of which I hope to be able to report at 3.30 today —[Interruption.] On the contrary, it needs nine to come to an agreement on anything, and that takes quite a lot of doing.
    As for the resurgence of anti-European or anti-Common Market feeling, some of my hon. Friends are reflecting a feeling in the country of exasperation about conditions generally, which they are wrongly relating to membership of the European Community. As there is no practical prospect of our leaving the Community, it is better that we combine and direct

    539
    our efforts to reforming the features about it which do not suit British convenience. Of those, the agricultural policy is certainly one.
    Mr. Skinner: If my right hon. Friend has a little time on his hands today, will he take time to examine the company accounts of that squalid little man George Ward, who apparently has not sent the accounts to Companies House in compliance with the law? Does not my right hon. Friend get a little sick of watching George Ward on television night after night, along with some of his colleagues on the Tory Benches, pontificating about upholding the letter of the law when he is not carrying it out himself?
    The Prime Minister: I have not watched him every night on television—I understand that he has now complied by submitting his accounts—but I see no reason to depart from the view, which I hold very strongly, that no one should be dismissed from any firm or company for the simple act of belonging to a trade union.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Because of what the Prime Minister has just said, I should like to ask him two questions. First, in view of his reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), is he aware that in our own Industrial Relations Act 1971, which he repealed, we enshrined the right to join a trade union? Is he also aware—and if not, will he make inquiries about it—that there are at the moment some three people on the staff at Grun-wick who are members of unions and who have been since the dispute started? That does not fit in very well with the sentiments that the right hon. Gentleman expressed about people not being allowed to join a union.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 there must have been something good. [Interruption.] It was a bad Act and the Opposition know that it was a bad Act. That is why it was repealed. I can see that we can anticipate a very interesting debate later today, and I do not propose to go too far into it now. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, in the question that she is putting, is affirming the right of ordinary employees to belong to a trade union—[HON. MEMBERS: "And not to belong."]—and not to be dismissed simply for that reason.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Not only am I affirming it, I am pointing out that there are apparently three people at Grunwick who have been members of unions since before the dispute started. Therefore, it cannot be alleged correctly that people have been dismissed because they have joined a trade union. On one occasion last week the Prime Minister himself alleged that people had been dismissed for joining a union, but when he was asked to name them, neither he nor the Department of Employment could answer.
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that these matters will be gone into in greater detail in the course of the debate today. Until it is proved to the contrary, I must say that I adhere to my view that there is every reason to believe that people have been dismissed for membership of trade unions. That is a fundamental principle, and I ask the right hon. Lady to deny that this is so if she knows so much about it.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister join me in leaving it to a court of law to decide this matter and not to make judgments previously?
    The Prime Minister: With respect, membership of a trade union is not something that should be left to a court of law—
    Mr. Gorst: These people are hooligans
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not the best man to talk about hooligans. The simple principle, which I thought should be affirmed and which I thought was generally agreed by the whole House—but apparently I am wrong —is that membership of a trade union is the right of every individual employes, and not merely of three individuals in any firm.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30th June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
    Mr. Adley: Will the Prime Minister answer today the letter I sent him at the weekend about trade union membership? Will he accept from me that people in the Conservative Party of course believe in

    541
    enshrining the right of any person in this country to be free to join a trade union but also believe in enshrining the right of any person not to join a trade union? Will he join me in sponsoring a motion in this House upholding both these freedoms?
    The Prime Minister: I shall look into the question of a reply to the hon. Member, although I am not certain about the letter to which he is referring. I cannot undertake to reply today. On the second part of his question, I am glad that he is catching up with the principle that should have been apparent to the Conservative Party for the last 100 years.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the Conservative Party's attitude over this matter shows up the transparent hypocrisy of the so-called rapprochement between it and the trade union movement? Does he further agree that after a General Election victory by the Conservatives—which God forbid—there would be a period of social disruption that would rip the country apart because of the stance that they have taken on this issue?
    The Prime Minister: I find it a little difficult to define the attitude of the Conservative Party. I think that Conservatives are very divided in their views on this matter. Half of them, in one part of their minds, know what is right in principle, and the other half cannot fail to make political capital out of a very difficult situation.
    Mr. Mates: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in the House must feel that the whole question is very complex and not subject to a simple answer? Is he further aware that when he asked the Leader of the Opposition whether she felt that a man should be free to join a trade union, she answered quite unequivocally "Yes"? Will the Prime Minister answer "Yes" or "No" equally unequivocally to the question whether a man should be free not to join a trade union?
    The Prime Minister: Within the limits laid down in the matter of agreements supported by the Conservative Party and others on issues like closed shop, the answer is "Yes".
    Mr. Tuck: Will the Prime Minister consider taking time off from his public
    542
    engagements today to broadcast to the nation? Following last week's debate on the Price Commission, it is quite clear that a prices free-for-all is the cornerstone of Tory policy.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the 31-hour debate last week showed clearly that the Conservative Party is as much out of tune with the public on this issue as it is on many others. I hope that it will be possible to point out that the whole purpose of the Conservative opposition to the Prices Bill last week was to weaken, omit, and ensure in every way that price control is as flexible as possible, against the interests of the public.
    Sir G. Howe: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are disagreements between both sides about the limit of the right of belonging and not belonging to a trade union? However, the present law, enacted by this House, defines these rights clearly. Will he endorse that these rights should be determined through the courts and the procedures laid down, instead of through industrial warfare conducted in the streets?
    The Prime Minister: I find it difficult to answer a general proposition of that sort. It is my experience, after a long record of trade union membership, that the more the courts stay out of industrial relations the better. This was a basic mistake that the Conservative Party made earlier, and I would have hoped that Conservatives would learn from that. There matters are better settled outside the courts.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what matters were discussed with Heads of Governments of EEC member States at the recent summit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I hope to make a statement after Questions on the meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. Molloy—
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would keep his supplementary question until after Question Time.

    CBI
    Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on 17th February.
    Mr. Ward: As I am not able to refer immediately to that answer, will the Prime Minister say whether he has discussed with the CBI its latest statement of intention to invest? Did he put to it the view of the Leader of the Opposition that the only financial incentive at present is to disinvest? Does he agree that the figures of the CBI show burgeoning expansion of investment by British industry?
    The Prime Minister: When I meet the CBI from time to time, this issue is discussed. It was discussed when I met industrial leaders 10 days ago to consider industrial strategy. There are signs of a beginning of an increase in investment, and the signs for 1978 are that it will be very substantial indeed. I hope that these intentions will be carried through.
    Mr. Tapsell: When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI will he feel it his duty to tell it that in his opinion, whatever the merits of what has been going on inside Grunwick, he regards the scenes outside as representing the unacceptable face of trade unionism?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite capable of making my own comments to the CBI on these matters, just as I have made them in the House on many occasions. The hon. Member does not make it any better by asking me to repeat them now.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I should like to make a short statement on the meeting of the European Council, which concluded at lunch-time today. Two statements have been issued on growth, inflation and unemployment and on the Middle East, and both have been placed in the Library of the House.
The European Council reviewed economic developments since our meeting
544
in Rome and recognised the need for a sustained expansion of world economic activity consistent with a further reduction of the rate of inflation and of unemployment.
Unemployment was a leading theme of our discussions, particularly employment of young people and of women, and I was able to report to the other Heads of Government details of the youth opportunities programme which was announced to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. This initiative was very much welcomed.
Following the last European Council, I wrote to the Chairman of the Governors of the European Investment Bank asking for proposals from the Bank to promote investment and employment. I reported to the Council that in reply the Chairman has given a positive indication of an immediate expansion in the Bank's activities which could lead to lending within the Community of about £750 million in 1977 and £1 billion in 1978.
Members of the Council emphasised the importance of the commitments made by some Heads of Government to the achievement of specific growth targets in 1977 and emphasised the need to promote stability and to seek expansion through export-led growth.
We invited the Commission to study certain sectors of industries in our countries which are adversely affected by structural changes in the economy, whilst adhering to the view that a liberal commercial policy was in the best interests of the Community and of the world as a whole.
I was able to bring other Heads of Government up to date on the passage of events in Southern Africa, including an account of the discussions at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It was agreed that the situation is growing in seriousness, and the Foreign Ministers will continue to exchange views in order to achieve a concerted policy.
There was a useful exchange of views on East-West relations and President Giscard reported on the recent visit to Paris of President Brezhnev.
The statement on the Middle East affirmed that all aspects of Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 must be taken into account and our statement reflects the leading rôle which the United

545
States has in promoting negotiations for a peace settlement. It was, nevertheless, the view of the Heads of Government that a statement by the Nine at this stage would make clear our view of the need for progress in further negotiations.
This was a useful but not dramatic meeting which enabled us to review existing policies and, where necessary, to adapt them to a changing situation.
Mrs. Thatcher: That statement was made at breakneck speed.
May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? First, in regard to JET, which I do not think was mentioned in the statement, we are disappointed that there has been no attempt to secure JET for Culham, because we believe that that is the best place to have that project. The research at Culham is among the foremost in the world, and it is important for us to seek further to develop nuclear fusion at Culham. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any advance on that situation?
Secondly, does he remember that the first statement which he made on this year's summitry, the Downing Street summit, finished up with the intention of those who signed the communique to secure the momentum of economic recovery? Is he aware that that momentum already appears to have been lost, since the growth that was forecast has been revised downwards, and our growth forecast appears to have been revised the most downwards of all?
The Prime Minister: On the question of JET, the right hon. Lady is aware that for a long time now the Government have been making the case for Culham against strong opposition. This needs agreement, and we have not yet achieved it. There are other areas which are regarded as being as good.
I believe that we are losing a great deal of time and that if Europe is not careful the team of scientists will be dispersed and will go to the United States or elsewhere. I pointed this out vigorously at the meeting. If Europe is unable to agree on this project, I fear that no individual country in Europe can handle it on its own, and the Government should then try to get, if possible, a trilateral or quadrilateral arrangement among some other countries—I do not know whether it
546
would be possible—so that at least we could keep the project within Europe even if it were not a European project. I do not want to be over-optimistic on that aspect, however. We have asked the Foreign Ministers to consider this matter in July with a view to reaching a final conclusion then. I ask the scientific team at Culham to wait for a further month in hope that we can push the project through. But this is one of the areas where the Nine have to agree.
I was asked about economic recovery. I agree that much momentum seems to have been dissipated. The countries which should be maintaining a high rate of growth have not deliberately slowed down. The reason for the loss of momentum is probably not within their full comprehension. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These factors in the world today are beyond understanding in traditional terms. But the view was brought home to those countries which provide the motor of the Western economy that the faster the growth they can achieve, the better the chance of reducing unemployment. But at the moment I cannot see unemployment being substantially reduced throughout Europe as a whole through those means.
Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend said that problems of unemployment and economic policy were at the centre of these discussions. Has he had an account of a statement made publicly this morning on the radio by Mr. Len Murray, General Secretary of the TUC, that he was bitterly disappointed at the effort made in the Common Market to deal with the problem of unemployment? In view of that view, expressed responsibly by the TUC, is it not time for Britain to take action on its own by cancelling the IMF loan and supporting a policy of reflation without delay?
The Prime Minister: I do not know when Mr. Murray was on the radio, but I discussed this matter with him and members of the European TUC at 8 o'clock this morning. He gave me his personal views on the situation. If I can go on blowing my modest trumpet, I met the European employers at 8.30 this morning and they, too, expressed disappointment about the rate of recovery. However, my hon. Friend wants me to go a great deal wider on the

547
matter of the IMF loan. That did not come up at the meeting today. Perhaps I may say, in passing, that before we cancel any further aspects of that loan, we need to consider the effect of so doing on international confidence in Britain, which is now very high indeed.
Mr. Amery: Will the Prime Minister comment on reports from New York that our delegation has been instructed to support the provision of material assistance to the armed forces of Mozambique? Does this mean that we shall send arms to fight against Rhodesia? Will instructors—civilian, if not military—go with them? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the full implications of all this?
The Prime Minister: This matter did not come up at our discussions today and I am not in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on it.
Mr. Roper: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues, formally or informally, the progress of direct elections in their countries and the chance of meeting the target date of June next year?
The Prime Minister: Yes. We all gave an account of where we had got to. I drew the deduction that we were as far ahead as any of the other countries.
Mr. Thorpe: Although I welcome recognition that the Palestinian people must be present to put forward their viewpoint on the Middle East, may I ask whether there was general acceptance that this would be unlikely to happen unless and until the sovereignty and independence of Israel were first recognised by the Arab States and by the PLO?
Secondly will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the three applicants—Greece Turkey and Portugal—have had their applications accepted in principle and that it is merely a question of the timing of the machinery? Thirdly, did he deduce from his eight partners that they were as resolute and determined to move towards direct elections as is the Prime Minister? If so, which were more so and which were less so?
The Prime Minister: At my request a sentence was inserted in the document on the Middle East to the effect that it remained our firm view that all aspects
548
must be taken as a whole. That referred to matters such as the respecting of sovereignty, the territorial independence of Israel and living within secure borders, as much as to the question of the Palestinians and the prospect of a homeland for them. In our view all these issues are a ball of wax and they must be taken together. That is my strong view.
Applications for membership have been received from Greece and Portugal and both are now being processed. The Greek application is further advanced than the Portuguese application, on which a vue d'ensemble will be taken in the near future. It will be for the Community to decide how the negotiations will be conducted thereafter. Portugal is bound to have a long transitional period, and that is recognised by the Portuguese Government.
Mr. Molloy: Can the Prime Minister say whether, when he had discussions with his EEC colleagues on the problem of youth unemployment, he found that they had any proposals comparable with those announced by the British Government a few days ago? Will it be possible for the TUC and CBI and their counterparts in Europe to see what united action they could endeavour to undertake to assist youth unemployment, not only in this country but throughout the EEC?
The Prime Minister: It is fair to say that the bold and imaginative scheme which was put forward yesterday, and which I described to the Council, was received with considerable satisfaction. Other countries have schemes, but not on that scale. At the tripartite conference last week between the trade unions, employers and Government, a proposal was made that we should co-ordinate our efforts in this direction. At least Britain can claim to be in the lead in the task of ensuring that young people who are out of work will be given a period of training or further education.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is the Prime Minister aware that the comparative failure of this conference has in no way been relieved by the dangerous and explosive statement about the Middle East? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that many people believe that what has been said is way outside Resolution No. 242 and that it sets up new stresses which could be a great danger and which could lead

549
to a heightening of tension in the Middle East?
Hon. Members Hon. Members: No.
The Prime Minister: It is clear from hon. Members' comments that there is more than one view on that. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, as one who has great influence in Israel, to take my word that the statement does not involve any new language. It puts a number of things together that have been set out on different occasions in the past, but it should not excite anyone in Israel, in particular, to think that the basic situation has changed. A period of negotiation is needed. The purpose of the statement was not to excite people on either side but to indicate our view of the conditions under which negotiations should be conducted.
Mr. Noble: The Prime Minister said in his statement that discussions took place about industries adversely affected by structural change. Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the French President the measures that have been taken in France to deal with the short-term crisis in the textile industry, pending the next phase of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? In view of the similar serious situation in respect of developments in the British cotton textile industry, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to similar measures to provide short-term help for that industry?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend emphasised the words "short-term", and I understand his point, because the real solution is to re-negotiate the MFA. I did not discuss this with the French President, and it might have been a sensitive subject for him, since his measures have been ruled out of order by the Commission and, presumably, he will have to make some changes. If my hon. Friend has some other proposals to put forward that would enable the industry in the short term to continue, for example, with the temporary employment subsidy, I suggest that he should see the Secretary of State for Trade.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call only three more hon. Members from each
550
side, because there are two other statements to follow.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In his report to the conference on his conversations with Marshal Brezhnev, did the President of the French Republic say what sort of reaction he had had during his conversations with the Marshal on the subject of Basket III of the Helsinki Agreement and, in particular, on the treatment of those citizens of the Soviet Union who have been monitoring progress on human rights since the signing of the Helsinki Agreement?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. President Giscard d'Estaing gave some account of his conversations with President Brezhnev on a confidential basis, and I regret that, therefore, I cannot undertake to indicate what was said by him on this matter.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any discussion about the threat to employment in the Community arising out of Japanese exports to the Community from a whole range of industries? Can my right hon. Friend say whether any progress in this matter can be expected in the near future?
The Prime Minister: There was discussion on the general matter and discussion of countries not only paying lip service to the idea of free trade in these areas but being as willing to accept free trade on the import side as they are on the export side. I cannot say whether we shall make any progress, but this is one of the issues that the Commission has been asked to consider in connection with some of our sensitive industries in Europe.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What progress did the right hon. Gentleman make in persuading his Common Market colleagues about specific reforms of the common agriculture policy? Did the right hon. Gentleman achieve a common front on the Belgrade Conference? How did he explain to the other eight Heads of Government that a significant number of his colleagues in the Cabinet will shortly be voting against direct elections to Europe?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the CAP on this occasion because it has been discussed recently and will be discussed again by the Agriculture

551
Ministers. On Belgrade, there is a common front among most—and probably all—European countries. There are differences in nuance, but basically we do not want a polemical exchange at Belgrade. We want to put our position firmly on human rights and the freedom of people to move into and out of their countries.
We discussed direct elections, and there was great interest in the matter. I do not want to be unfair to any of my colleagues in other Governments, but I have a feeling that their parliaments—and not just their parties—are much more docile than this one.
Mr. George Cunningham: Did the Prime Minister discuss direct elections, and has he carefully studied paragraph 50 in Schedule 4 to the European Assembly Elections Bill, under which it would be possible for a candidate to stand in an election, get not one single vote from any voter but nevertheless be declared elected? Did the Prime Minister point out to his European colleagues that the British public is likely to think that that is something of a flaw?
The Prime Minister: That is an interesting point that had previously escaped me. However, I am sure it will be deployed eloquently and at length during the course of the debates on the Bill.
Mr. Marten: In the course of his statement the Prime Minister referred to a loss of economic momentum in the world, and, equally, inside the Community. Are not the Council and the Prime Minister concerned that the accession of Spain, Portugal, Greece and possibly, one hopes, Turkey will delay the economic recovery of the Community? Therefore, did the Community take a broader look at its future direction and where it is going? If not, is it not time that it did?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the accession of four countries but two have not yet even made application so it is not worth while spending time and consideration in the middle of the present recession on what would be the consequences if those countries
552
now belonged to the Community. Neither Greece or Portugal will be a full member of the Community for some time.
As to the future shape of the Community, this is a serious and important problem. As the Community stretches and becomes larger, its character will inevitably change. This is not a new thought. I have expressed it constantly in the House. The Community is open to accession by any democratic country, and these consequences will inevitably follow.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister clear up the scientific and economic nonsense implicit in his statement that the JET project can stay in this country only if we make a bigger contribution to the European budget? Does he not agree that with world leadership in this area established by our brilliant engineers and scientists, Britain can go it alone if necessary and does not need the partnership of European nations? Why do we not turn, if necessary, towards the United States and establish further development at Culham on that basis?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is mistaken. There is nothing in the statement that relates the destination of the JET project to an increase in our contribution to the European budget. My hon. Friend must have misheard that. In regard to going it alone, this is a scientific and technical matter, and my advice is that, in terms of cost and perhaps technology, it would not be possible for us to go it alone. Therefore, I do not recommend that. The United States has its own research project and, although I am among the first to wish to link with the United States, it is an area, especially in view of Europe's shortage of energy and its over-extended reliance on Middle East oil, where Europe should be getting down to the project as quickly as it can, even though it is not likely to come to fruition until the end of the century. It needs an act of wisdom and generosity by the other EEC countries for this to be done—otherwise, we must see what we can negotiate. I am doubtful whether we shall be able to make an arrangement, although I should regard it as the Government's responsibility to try.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Business Statement, Mr. Foot.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4TH JULY—Supply (26th Allotted Day): there will be a debate on a motion by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru on the salary of the Prime Minister.
Remaining stages of the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 5TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill [Lords] and the Torts (Interference with Goods) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Redundancy Rebates Bill.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline (Continuation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 6TH JULY and THURSDAY 7TH JULY— Second Reading of the European Assembly Elections Bill.
At the end on Thursday, motions on Ministers' and Members' pay and secretarial allowance.
FRIDAY 8TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill.
MONDAY 11TH JULY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
Mrs. Thatcher: What are the Lord President's intentions about the direct elections Bill, which is to have its Second Reading next week? As it seems unlikely that the Bill will reach the statute book this Session—indeed, it is not expected or intended to do so—is he expecting to give an opportunity for a decision to be made on the method of election before the House rises for the summer? It will be necessary to do so in order that when the Bill comes back, if the Government are still in power in
554
the autumn, it will be better constructed than it is at present.
Mr. Foot: We all know that the Government will be here when we come back in the autumn. There is no doubt about that. It would be much more in accordance with normal practice if we had the Second Reading debate as we have announced. When the House has made a decision, we can see how to proceed to the next stage.
Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate soon on the sugar industry, because our membership of the EEC means that 2,000 port refinery jobs will be threatened in the near future?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will seek means of raising this subject in the House.
Mr. Tebbit: Have this Government of planners a plan for when the House will go into recess for the summer?
Mr. Foot: We do not yet have a date. As soon as we have fixed it, we shall let the House know—and I hope that we shall have the enthusiastic support of the hon. Gentleman on that subject, if on nothing else.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Standing Committee on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill has not yet reached decisions on a number of key issues in relation to the Bill and that these will have to be gone over very carefully on Friday next week? Would he consider the unusual, but not unprecedented, step of recommitting the Bill to a Committee of the whole House so that we are not limited by Report stage procedures but can consider it under Committee Stage procedures and take the remaining stages on the same day?
Mr. Foot: I am doubtful whether that would be the best procedure. I should have thought that the normal Report stage procedure was the best way of proceeding. Since my hon. Friend has raised the point, I shall look into it, but I can give him no encouragement that we shall think that this is the right way to proceed. I hope that we can complete the Bill next Friday. I know that there are important matters to be discussed but I think that they can all be discussed on Report.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the fact that there is another potentially very unpleasant industrial dispute in the South-West at Channing Wood Prison with pickets protesting outside the prison regarding a Home Office building contract? I do not want to press the matter or to make things more difficult today, but would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the appropriate Home Office Minister that we shall expect a statement next week if this incident is not speedily resolved?
Mr. Foot: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written to my right hon. Friend, who is carefully considering the representations that have been made. Whether there should be a statement next week is another question, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 383 concerning the effect of a price increase in school meals? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an early statement, preferably saying that the proposal is to be abandoned?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to withdraw its proposals to increase the price of school meals by 10p per meal per day planned to take effect in September 1977, believing that the increases proposed will undermine the value of the child benefit scheme, will cause hardship for the families of working people at a time of high inflation, will undermine the school meals service and cause further job losses, and will damage the nutritional intake of children.]
Mr. Foot: I have seen the motion and I note that it has widespread support on this side of the House. I am sure that this will be taken into account by the Ministers concerned, but I cannot say that there will be a statement on the subject next week.
Mr. Wigley: As the Report stage of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill will follow quickly on the Committee stage, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that all the documents related to the Bill in Committee, including the copies of Hansard and, particularly, the Bill as
556
amended, will be available in good time for amendments to be put down on Report?
Mr. Foot: We shall do everything possible to ensure that all the documents are available to the House. I hope that there will not be any hold-up in this respect. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be eager to assist the House in getting the Bill through so that we do not have it held up. I certainly take note of the important point that he has raised.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: Has the Lord President's attention been drawn to the recent Second Report of the Select Committee on "Violence in the family" which recommends that there should be an early debate on the problems of battered wives? In view of the considerable public as well as parliamentary concern about the issues involved, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate fairly soon?
Mr. Foot: If we are to announce the date for which I was asked earlier, we shall not have a great deal of time for all the matters that the House wishes to debate. This subject has been pressed by others of my hon. Friends. I shall look at it afresh to see whether time is available, but I cannot make any promises.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the Leader of the House has become fully aware of the glaring defects in the direct elections Bill—as he will at least by next Thursday —will he consider withdrawing the Bill rather than wasting the time of the House in going through the Committee and Report stages of a Bill that is beyond power to be remedied?
Mr. Foot: I would have thought that what the hon. Member has said would be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill. I await with interest the speech that he may make on that occasion.
Mr. Noble: In view of the problems facing the footwear industry, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on footwear as soon as possible?
Mr. Foot: Once again, I cannot promise a debate. I know that many of my hon. Friends are much concerned with the situation. They have raised it with me and with the Secretary of State for Trade. I shall have further conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary

557
of State to see what can be done to meet the representations that have been made.
Sir David Renton: The Government have not so far tabled a motion for the House to consider after the EEC elections Bill gets its Second Reading next Thursday. Does that mean that the Government intend that the Committee be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Foot: I suppose that the Committee stage of a Bill of this constitutional character would have to be taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Molloy: On the question of Greater London affairs, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his earlier answer about having debates in other places in the House? In view of the references made by people such as the present Leader of the GLC—which would do credit to any Reichstag—about changes for the people of London, and since these issues are so serious, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the affairs of London on the Floor of the House? When considering the matter, will he bear in mind the serious, almost Fascist, statements that have been made by the present Leader of the GLC?
Mr. Foot: I know that there are serious issues to be raised that affect London. As I have indicated before, we shall not have time, before the House goes into the Summer Recess, to debate all the serious issues. I shall take all representations into account, but hon. Members must recognise that all their claims cannot be met.
Mr. Temple-Morris: Last Monday the White Paper on transport was published. This is one of the most extensive reviews of transport for some time. Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members want the opportunity to discuss this, bearing in mind that transport, although it has done better this year, has not had the attention it deserves in recent years?
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the hon. Member's acceptance that the House has done better recently in debating transport. The Government provided time for some of those discussions Of course, there will have to be a debate on the White Paper, but I cannot promise that it will be before the recess.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited.
During the past week or so I have had a number of meetings with the parties concerned. I have discussed the situation with the Managing Director of the company, Mr. Ward, and his advisers, and with the General Secretary of APEX, Mr. Grantham. I have attempted to explore with both sides how sufficient progress might be made towards resolving the issues in dispute and to defuse the explosive situations which exist on the picket line and elsewhere. These escalating troubles must be laid to rest before they do more damage.
During the course of the discussions I considered very hard in what way progress might best be made. I formed the conclusion that, if the parties were able to give me certain assurances, I should appoint an independent mediator to investigate the circumstances of the dispute, to make recommendations to the parties, and to report to me. I wrote to Mr. Ward and Mr. Grantham last Friday to say that I would appoint a mediator if they would agree to co-operate with him and abide by his recommendations The union was prepared to give me these assurances, but, despite long discussions, I have been unable to persuade Mr. Ward and his advisers to agree to abide by a mediator's recommendations. In view of this, I have come to the conclusion, very regretfully, that the appointment of a mediator would not bring about any early progress.
The Government have been considering what further steps might be taken, since it is clear that matters cannot be allowed to go on like this. I have, therefore, today appointed a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act 1919. Its terms of reference are:
"To inquire into the causes and circumstances of, and relevant to, the dispute, other than any matter before the High Court until the final determination of those proceedings, and to report."
These terms allow all the circumstances and issues involved to be examined, other than the ACAS recommendation on union

559
recognition, the validity of which is being challenged by the company in High Court proceedings which begin next week.
The chairman of the court of inquiry will be the right hon. Lord Justice Scar-man. The other members will be Mr. J. P. Lowry, Director of Personnel, British Leyland Limited and formerly Director of the Engineering Employers' Federation; and Mr. Terence Parry, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades' Union. I have asked the court to begin its work with the greatest urgency.
Courts of inquiry under the 1919 Act are not set up lightly. This is only the second since 1972. But this has been a very long, bitter and damaging dispute, which still shows signs of widening. I believe that a court of inquiry is now the right course. Over the years, courts of inquiry have brought about the resolution of other disputes that were equally damaging and intractable.
To do so the court needs every possible help. First, it will be looking for full co-operation from the parties. I would urge them to give it every assistance and to help it expedite its proceedings.
Secondly, and this is most important, it needs to be able to proceed in a reasonably calm atmosphere. Action by either party aimed at reinforcing entrenched positions, including mass picketing or any other action that might lead to breaches of the law, does not help. I would appeal to both APEX and Grunwick to consider whether their behaviour is calculated to increase the chances of achieving a peaceful solution of the dispute. I am very well aware of the strength of feeling of both parties to the dispute, but I think that I am entitled to urge this upon them and upon others involved. I would also hope that this appeal will have the full support of the TUC and the CBI.
Finally, the court's attempt to seek a peaceful solution needs the full support of the whole House. I am confident that this will be forthcoming. I hope that any statements made now, or in the debate that we are to have later, will be of a kind that will help and not hinder this effort to find a peaceful solution.
Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is essential that this inquiry should take place in a calm atmosphere
560
and that we should start by a resolution to that effect in the House today? Is he aware that if that calm atmosphere is to be maintained, it is essential that picketing outside Grunwick be reduced to no more than the level of a few weeks ago, and that it should remain at that level during the whole of the court of inquiry?
Secondly, may I take it from what the Secretary of State said that the Post Office workers will lift their ban? Does he accept that that is an essential prerequisite to the court of inquiry? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It really must be an essential prerequisite that the law is upheld. Is the Secretary of State further aware that, given these two essential prerequisites—the level of picketing and the lifting of the ban—hon. Members on this side of the House would urge full co-operation by both parties with the inquiry?
Mr. Booth: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to put conditions on the support that his party will give to this court of inquiry. As to the calm atmosphere and the relationship between that and the number of pickets, the violence that has accompanied certain of the demonstrations outside the plant is something I greatly deplore, but that was not related only to the number of pickets. It was related also to the actions of a number of people there. I have every reason to believe that the general secretary of APEX will seek to co-operate fully with the police in every way he can to avoid any further violence or disturbances outside the plant.
On the Post Office ban, I am not laying down conditions for this court of inquiry. If I could have obtained assurances and conditions that would have enabled a mediator to do his work properly, I should not have come here today to announce this court of inquiry. What I am doing is appealing to all those concerned to give the utmost co-operation to this inquiry and to ensure an atmosphere in which it has the best possible chance of resolving this dispute.
Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Mr. Ward's intransigent refusal to have a mediator was inspired and instructed by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who is advising him? Did he conduct the negotiations or did Mr. Ward? If, when the

561
result of the court of inquiry is known, the management still proves intransigent and refuses to accept the result, can he confirm that the union has every right to pursue its lawful grievance and to get people to join the union or not to join it as the case may be?
Mr. Booth: It is the case that in my meetings with Mr. Ward of Grunwick the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) acted as spokesman throughout almost the whole of those discussions.
Mr. Molloy: How much did he get paid?
Mr. Booth: However, I have no reason to believe that he was not representing the views of Mr. Ward or the directors of Grunwick, and I do not challenge the right of Mr. Ward to decide who should act as spokesman for him. As to whether the company, or the union for that matter, will abide by the recommendations that may be produced by this court of inquiry, I believe that it would be a grave matter if either party were to ignore the recommendations of a court of such high standing, consisting as it does of an eminent judge and two highly-regarded industrial relations experts, who will lay their report before both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his statement and compliment the Government on the inquiry that they have set up? Is he further aware that we particularly compliment him on the membership of the inquiry, especially the fact that a member of the judiciary is to be the chairman? We hope that that implies support for the judiciary and can be taken as an indication of that.
Is he finally aware that we support his appeal to all sides of the dispute to co-operate with the inquiry? Will he understand that if anyone, from inside or outside the factory, attempts to interfere with the proper conduct of the inquiry, he will be dealt with in proper fashion by the law of the land and by the upholders of the law, that is, the police, who have our admiration and support in the actions they have taken?
Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his most ready response to my appeal for the fullest support for
562
the inquiry. As for his welcome comments about the membership of the court, I am very grateful for the ready response I received from the three men who have undertaken to form the court and their willingness to make themselves available at very short notice to conduct an inquiry that has to be regarded as a matter of urgency and great concern.
Mr. Mellish: If this firm had such a brilliant case, one would have thought that it would readily have accepted the principle of a mediator, that it would have said "We welcome this, because we have a perfect case." Instead of that, my right hon. Friend—his behaviour and that of his Department have been absolutely first rate—now has to set up a court of inquiry. The straight question which must be asked of my right hon. Friend again is if, on advice from certain people, this management says, "We will not cooperate," what he will do about that.
Mr. Booth: I rarely try to avoid a question, but I ask my right hon. Friend to allow me to avoid this one. To presume to consider what will happen if this court does not achieve the purpose for which it is set up will raise possibilities that we do not wish to consider. I hope that the whole House will wish to work on the assumption that the court can make an important contribution to the resolution of the dispute.
Mr. Gorst: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Grunwick management will co-operate in every way it possibly can with this court of inquiry? Is he further aware that it will give the most careful consideration to any recommendations? Is he further aware that it will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for it to co-operate if undue duress is exercised upon it at the time the inquiry takes place?
Finally, can he say when this court of inquiry will be sitting? Will it be at the same time as the High Court and any other court proceedings? If so, how does he imagine that it will be possible for the management of Grunwick to be in two places at the same time?
Mr. Booth: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said about the cooperation of the firm with the inquiry. I regret that he should have cast doubts upon that undertaking by his references

563
to its being dependent upon whether certain actions are judged as placing the firm under duress. I hope that that may be set aside. As to the times of the sitting of the court, I am confident that Lord Justice Scarman will very much appreciate the needs of both parties to the dispute to deploy their case in the High Court action and will arrange the sittings of his court accordingly.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Did my right hon. Friend notice the final part of the question of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in which he said that the court of inquiry may be stultified not only by the immediate proceedings pending in the High Court but by subsequent proceedings, which may even mean appeals to the House of Lords, and could take many weeks? Will he recommend to the court of inquiry that it should get on with the job as quickly as possible in order to stultify any more obstruction by the hon. Member?
Mr. Booth: I shall certainly recommend to the court of inquiry that it proceed as a matter of urgency with its task. In asking people to participate in the court I had that very much in mind, and they are aware of it. As to the possibility of High Court action conflicting in some way with the progress of the inquiry, I do not subscribe to the view that that could occur, since the terms of reference are specific in excluding any consideration of the matter before the High Court. I am sure that we can rely upon the court of inquiry to avoid trespassing on any matters which would be sub judice as a result of the High Court proceedings.
Mr. Brittan: While one welcomes the fact that a court of inquiry under so very distingished a chairman will enable the facts to be clarified, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the cooperation of both sides in the working of the inquiry will be assisted if it made clear in this House that any recommendations made will not be legally binding upon the parties?
Mr. Booth: It is true that, under the 1919 Act, any inquiries set up cannot produce recommendations which are legally binding upon the parties. I cannot necessarily agree that reminding
564
people of that is essential or necessary or conducive to bringing about a resolution of the dispute. I hope that what hon. Members will wish to do, having reflected upon the suitability and eminence of those who will be running the inquiry, is also to consider that their recommendations may be such as to inspire some confidence and a willingness to comply with those recommendations.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Leader of the Opposition to request the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and those who are very vociferous with him on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is on his own."]—to help to settle this dispute even now, without an inquiry or anything else, by simply accepting that the workers at Grunwick have the right to join a trade union— [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not want to. Do they have the right not to?"]—and to ask that the normally accepted procedures of decent employers be respected by Mr. Ward? If the Conservatives are not prepared to make that sort of statement, is it not clear that the Conservative Party is indicating, without any shadow of doubt, that it wants to go back to the industrial relations scene not only of 1970–71 but far beyond that, and that it had better make up its mind whether it is for free trade unionism or not?
Mr. Speaker: We are to debate this matter. Questions put now should be put in order to seek further information on the statement and not to anticipate the debate which is to take place
Mr. Carlisle: Since it is obviously essential that the inquiry should take place in as near normal an atmosphere as possible, would not the Secretary of State think it right that he should add his weight to the call made at an earlier stage by Mr. Tom Jackson, that those who are carrying out an illegal action at Crickle-wood should desist?
Mr. Booth: I made clear in my original announcement that I join those on all sides of this difficult dispute who will urge that people should desist from any actions which in themselves are illegal, or which might lead to illegal actions, during the court of inquiry—and I would say at all times.
Mr. John Mendelson: There will be general agreement that the even-handed

565
tone of my right hon. Friend's statement is appropriate to his office. But must he not agree that from his brief account it emerges clearly that the union has at all times fully co-operated with his efforts to settle the dispute? Does he agree that Mr. Ward, inspired by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has refused to co-operate, and that we have now for the first time before the nation and Parliament the true story of this tragic dispute? When my right hon. Friend rightly appeals for everybody to be helpful, must not this include the police resuming the practice that they adopted for one day when the Home Secretary visited the site and allowing the lawful pickets to enter the bus and try to persuade the people at work to join the strike?
Mr. Booth: As I understand the law on picketing, provided there is no violence, provided there is no threat to the peace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or intimidation."]—there is no reason why pickets should not enter a bus to seek peacefully to dissuade people from taking any actions which might militate against their interests in the dispute.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side, because we shall be debating this matter fully.
Mr. Tebbit: Did the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) amount to the right hon. Gentleman's telling Post Office workers to desist from breaking the law and to get back to delivering the mail, or not?
Mr. Booth: Part of what I said amounted to an appeal to all those involved in this dispute, either as direct or associated parties, fully to observe the law.
Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the court of inquiry has been brought about as a result not of a few pickets being on the picket line for 30-odd weeks, with few people taking any notice, but because of the immense union solidarity, shown particularly by the Post Office workers at Cricklewood, whom we regard as being very important elements in the matter? Because such inquiries are shaped by the environment of the times,
566
as was the case with the Wilberforce Inquiry into the 1972 miners' dispute—when the dispute continued and helped to shape the minds of those sitting on the court of inquiry—does not my right hon. Friend agree with me, harking back to those days, that it is very important that the blacking and the picketing continue in order that those who decide the issue decide it in that kind of environment and not when the dispute has been cooled off?
Mr. Booth: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that a number of actions taken in the name of trade union solidarity have brought the dispute to the notice of the public, and to that extent have contributed to the statement I have made today. But I do not follow him—
Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend did in 1972.
Mr. Booth: —in his suggestion that it is crucial that all actions that have been maintained up to this point should continue through the period of the court of inquiry.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Arising out of the Secretary of State's earlier answer to one of his hon. Friends, for the avoidance of doubt would he make clear—if necessary after consultation with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is sitting next to him—that neither Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 nor any other right enables a person to demand entry to a motor bus or any private vehicle?
Mr. Booth: I did not say that the law gave anybody the right to demand entry to a bus because he or she happened to be picketing. What the law gives to those conducting picketing in an industrial dispute is a right to attend at a place for the purpose of peacefully communicating in an attempt to persuade. I suggest that it is hard peacefully to communicate with and persuade somebody who is inside a bus if one is outside the bus and kept at a distance from it.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Labour Benches have no faith that this most reactionary employer will accept what the court of inquiry recommends, which my right hon. Friend has already said will not be legally binding? The employer has denied the basic right of trade union representation and flouted

567
the ACAS report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to settle the strike is to support the TUC's call to give assistance in every way possible to the strikers? Is it not a dangerous precedent when an employer flouts the will of Parliament as expressed in the Employment Protection Act and all we can do is to set up elongated courts of inquiry?
Mr. Booth: What the employer has done is to challenge a body set up by Parliament on the employer's submission that it has not carried out its duty in the way that Parliament required it to. That is now a matter for determination by the High Court, and therefore it is not open to me to comment on it now.
Having said that, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the only way in which the dispute will be settled is by an escalation or even a continuation of actions which have been taken up to now. It behoves every hon. Member and all those concerned in the dispute to pause and give careful consideration to whether the announcement of the court of inquiry that I have made today must be seen as an essential vehicle to the resolution of the dispute if we are not to face more serious trouble.

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

1. Restrictive Trade Practices Act

2. Transport (Financial Provisions Act)

3. Neath Borough Council Act

4. Heritable Securities and Mortgage Investment Association Limited Act

5. Emu Wine Holdings Limited and Subsidiary Companies Act

And the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:
Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: I undertook yesterday, in response to a request from the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr.
568
Lipton), who has apologised to me that he cannot be in his place this afternoon, to consider the question of publicity being given to the contents of reports from Select Committees during the period after the reports have been formally laid upon the Table but before published copies are available to hon. Members. I gladly accede to the hon. Member's request that I should join with my predecessor, whose ruling he quoted, in deprecating such occurrences, which I consider to be discourtesies to the House, on the part both of those who disclose such information and of those who give it wider circulation.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, I remind the House once again about the application of the sub judice rule. I shall continue to disallow any reference to the cases of persons who have been arrested where there are charges pending or cases due to be heard. I must also disallow any reference to the civil action pending between ACAS and the Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited.
The issue in the action between Grun-wick and ACAS is whether the recommendation by ACAS in its report of 10th March 1977 under Section 12(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 that Grunwick should recognise APEX for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect of weekly paid staff is, as Grunwick claims, void on the grounds that ACAS failed to carry out its duties properly in conducting inquiries to ascertain the views of the workers as required by the 1975 Act. In consequence, it appears to me to follow that any reference to the actions of ACAS in this matter and to any comments which may have been made on these occasions, whether before or after the writ was issued, fall within the sub judice rule and may not be raised.
The motion, however, begins with the reference to the general situation at Grunwick and I reaffirm that the general issue of the dispute is not sub judice. Similarly, the conduct of the police, the pickets and the crowds can be discussed provided that no reference is made to questions before the court. General references to conciliation and arbitration will be in order provided that they do not touch upon the

569
recommendations of ACAS and the civil action pending in relation thereto.
May I remind the House of the words set out in "Erskine May" to which reference has been made many times in the past by my predecessors. These words are as follows:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."
I believe it is, above all, necessary that we should heed this advice today.
I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate. I realise that a number of hon. Members who will be called may well be speaking under great emotion. I ask them to bear in mind that others have equal emotion and will be wanting to participate in the debate.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Wednesday 29th June under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The situation at Grunwick, with particular reference to the decision of the London District Council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Grunwick.
I move the Adjournment of the House so that we may discuss the situation at Grunwick with particular reference to a decision taken earlier this week by the London District Council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Grunwick. I hope that your injunction to us to moderate our language and our humours was not addressed specially to me, Mr. Speaker. I shall, nevertheless, seek to follow it.
Although it was the particular matter of the Post Office worker's action which imparted the crucial urgency to this matter, you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, today and yesterday that everything will be in order except those matters that are sub judice. The dispute at Grunwick began on 23rd August last year at a time when the staff of that photographic processing firm was swollen by temporary staff, including a considerable number of students, to cope with the August peak
570
of photographic work. That may have been a factor in what followed. The detailed history of what followed is not relevant to the argument that I want to deploy. The two hon. Members with a constituency interest may well wish to recount those incidents, because their concern may have an emphasis different from mine.
An outline of events is essential for a definition of the principles that are involved. I am concerned, and I invite the House to be concerned, with what may in the most general manner be called the rule of law. It may also be called the rule of law by Parliament. I hope that we shall have a little rule of law inside our debate. Parliament sometimes makes bad laws. I can think of several. But they are still laws, and one of those laws is that if a man claims that he has been dismissed for joining a union, or wanting to join a union, he may go to an industrial tribunal with a claim of unfair dismissal. The law places the decision of such claims in those tribunals and, behind them, the courts.
The Grunwick dispute is not about employees being dismissed upon such grounds—
Mr. John Mendelson: Of course it is.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be able to give chapter and verse for that. I have been through it but I do not want to detain the House upon that point. I make the bald statement that the dispute at Grunwick is not about employees being dismissed on the grounds of their joining unions. [Interruption.] Last Thursday the Prime Minister, at c. 1738 of the Official Report, said that, on three occasions at least, people had been dismissed by the Grunwick company for joining a trade union. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who always watches the Prime Minister's words with great care, asked the Prime Minister whether he would list the persons concerned and the dates. That Question was, strangely enough, because it concerned the Prime Minister's words, referred to the Department of Employment. The answer given by the Minister

571
of State, which appears today, was monosyllabic—"No". The Minister of State will not list the names or name the dates.
I say without fear of valid contradiction that the dispute is not about employees being dismissed on the ground of joining unions, on the evidence available. It is, on the other hand, incontrovertible, and not controverted, that the dispute is about the recommendation of APEX as a negotiator for the employees in the factory, not one of whom is a mem-of APEX—
Mr. Martin Flannery: They were all sacked.
Mr. Bell: That applied to ex-employees at the moment when they left the factory.
In that remarkable cause APEX declared an official dispute and picketing at once began. Until nearly three weeks ago it was what is euphemistically called "peaceful picketing", because it was confined to abuse and insults and did not involve physical injury. After the violence erupted and continued in the way that the House knows from our daily exchanges upon the subject, the TUC General Council on 22nd June urged unions to intensify their support for the pickets.
The motion that was passed, which was reported in The Times, urged all unions to continue and to intensify financial and practical aid. The Times, if I may summarise the report, stated that the TUC General Council had urged unions to intensify their support for the Grun-wick strikers after further violent clashes between police and pickets. It added that miners from Scotland and Yorkshire intended to join the pickets that day. A statement issued at the same time said that the resolution would be transmitted immediately to all unions belonging to the TUC. That was on 22nd June.
In considering the responsibility of the postal workers in the Cricklewood sub-district post office it is useful to remember that their present action started on about 16th June, that the serious violence of pickets began to erupt at about that time, and that the TUC resolution calling on all unions to intensify their support came after that had been going on for nearly a week.
572
If the action of the Cricklewood postal workers has on this occasion been unofficial, in the sense that it has not been sponsored by their union, it must be remembered—as they will certainly remember—that when they took similar action between 1st and 4th November last year in the same cause, it was on the instructions of their union. Their General Secretary said then that the statutory provisions against delaying mail were old and had never been tested.
Finally, no condemnation of this illegality—for illegality it indisputably is— has come from any Minister until the Secretary of State for Employment spoke today.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is indisputable that there is a transgression of Section 58 of the Act, but the only legal authority for such a proposition is the remarks of the Master of the Rolls in the Gouriet case, which were not acceded to by the other members of the court. As yet, there is no authority for the proposition that it is illegal for the union, in the course of an industrial dispute, which this manifestly is, to carry out the kind of activity envisaged at Cricklewood.
Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken and confused. In the Gouriet case what was said, and what was cited by the Attorney-General on 23rd June, was that it was possible that a general strike against everybody by Post Office workers would not be a breach of the law. But the authority—if I need to rely on one, and surely the plain words of the Act are enough—is the Attorney-General himself, in his statement of 23rd June, a statement that was unsatisfactory but that did not dispute that there had been a breach of the law.
No condemnation of this illegality had come from anyone, except the rather tepid words of condemnation that had to be squeezed out today. There was not even any condemnation from the Attorney-General, even when he was hard pressed to condemn on 23rd June. Of course, he conceded the illegality and said that it would have his careful consideration, but condemnation came there none. On 2nd November last year, the Minister of State, Department of Employment sub-bornly refused to be drawn into any condemnation of action of the Union of Post

573
Office Workers which at that time was mounting an official strike against Grunwick and was instructing its members not to handle the company's mail. Hon. Member after hon. Member pressed the right hon. Gentleman to condemn this illegality but he ducked every one and talked about the extremity of the circumstances which must have caused reasonable men—by which he meant basically Mr. Tom Jackson—to behave in the way they were behaving. It has even been hard work to extract from Ministers condemnations of violence, or even what Opposition Members would regard as adequately warm and firm sympathy for the police, who have been outrageously handled in recent weeks.
The broader considerations that emerge from this background are as follows: the Post Office has a statutory monopoly for handling mail; it follows from that that a discrimination against particular users on any grounds must be made unlawful, as it is. By the Post Office Acts discrimination is unlawful.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The lawyers are at it again.
Mr. Bell: When this matter was raised on 2nd November the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) objected to it being raised at all. So afraid are his colleagues of trade union bullying that when he gets up—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt from a sedentary position. To do so is quite unfair to whoever is addressing the House. We have our well-established methods that anyone who wishes to intervene may follow.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I should draw your attention to the precise words that I uttered at the time that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) went into—
Mr. Speaker: Order. They are not germane to what I said. I am saying only that I hope that everyone in the House will listen to the speech being made without making a running commentary from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bell: The observations of the hon. Member for Bolsover were delivered from
574
an upright position when the Secretary of State for Employment was making a statement today. That illustrates the point I am making. He was urging that all coercive pressures, including illegality and sympathetic picketing, should continue in order to exercise pressure upon the court of inquiry that is being set up, and the Secretary of State said that he agreed with his hon. Friend.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what illegalities were carried out by pickets? When I visited the picket line, the only illegality was dangerous driving by the driver of the bus.
Mr. Bell: That is a very interesting question. I hope later to say a few words about it. However, I was referring to the illegality of the action of the postal workers, which is an entirely different subject.
It follows from what I have said about the Post Office monopoly of the delivery of mail that discrimination against particular users must be outlawed, as it is in the Post Office Act 1953. But by virtue of the same Act, a person injured has no legal redress against the Post Office. That is explicitly stated.
By virtue of trade union legislation, and especially by virtue of the Act that was introduced by Labour in 1974, a person injured—and he may be very gravely injured—has no redress against postal workers when they are engaged in an industrial dispute. He has no redress against the postal workers' union if it endorses the dispute. Both groups are totally exempt. He therefore has no redress whatever for any damage that he might suffer.
That being so, the Post Office is entitled to prosecute or dismiss, but it is not bound to do so. Yesterday the Post Office put out an ultimatum which expired at 11.30 a.m. today. That ultimatum has been ignored and the threat has not been carried out.
These things being so, the final and effective responsibility for the operation of this statutory monopoly falls squarely upon the Government and Parliament. There is no other way in which the subject can be protected. The prime responsibility for ensuring that there is no discrimination falls upon the Secretary of

575
State for Industry by virtue of Section 11(9) of the Post Office Act 1969. The words used are not entirely apt for the particular dispute, but his is the supervising responsibility. I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about it. [Interruption.] The guardian of the law is the Attorney-General. We know what he is doing about it—nothing.
The issue was raised with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 23rd June. He conceded the illegality, but when pressed and asked whether he would do anything, he said:
"In deciding whether those most exceptional circumstances exist, I have to take into account the damage caused by a failure to ensure that the law is complied with, on the one side, and, on the other, the risk of grave damage to the public as a whole if action taken is likely to provoke far more widespread repercussions."
So the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to make inquiries. He was further pressed and he referred to the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the Gouriet case, which made it at least possible that a strike would not be a criminal offence. He said that that was something he had to consider. He said that if Post Office employees were
"wholly to withdraw their labour"
that
"would not be a breach of the criminal law…. It is absolutely right that I should have that in mind as one of the public interest factors which I have to consider".—[Official Report, 23rd June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 1741–42.]
If the Attorney-General is to act upon that basis, if he is to weigh the impact upon the public of enforcing the Jaw against those who are injuring an individual, against the impact on the public of wider action provoked by his enforcing the law to protect the individual, he lays himself wide open to blackmail. In that way he is replacing the rule of law with the rule of the bully-boys.
We establish a statutory monopoly of the mail and then we say that if it is to be a public monopoly we must protect the individual against discrimination. We provide that an offence is created in certain circumstances. We say that anyone who delays a postal packet shall be guilty of a criminal offence and may be punished on indictment. The Attorney-General says "Yes, but if I prosecute
576
because the Post Office will not and that produces a strike, I shall not be able to touch the strike because it may not be illegal and, therefore, I shall not prosecute". If that line is taken, protection for the individual under Section 58 is non-existent.
We all know about union militancy, and we know that today the Secretary of State for Employment has announced the instituting of a court of inquiry. The mediator was not accepted. The right hon. Gentleman could not get acceptance that the findings of the mediator would be binding. However, he is appointing a court of inquiry and he asks for co-operation. I hope that there will be co-operation, but at the end of the day what will emerge? There is not very much dispute on the facts. There is a little dispute but not very much.
As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North is very detailed in his knowledge of the facts. However, on the accusation that people have been dismissed for joining a union, I am told by my hon. Friend—he will enlarge upon it if he has the opportunity to do so—that 60 cases went to the industrial tribunal and only in the last case was it suggested that the man had been dismissed for seeking to join a union, and that was not sustained— [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I shall withdraw.
Mr. John Gorst: Perhaps I may correct my hon. and learned Friend. I misdirected him on this issue. In all the cases there was no question of the employee being dismissed for trade union activities.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend did not misdirect me. I stated the facts correctly, namely, that it was not until the last case that the question arose of a man being dismissed—
Mr. Emlyn Hooson Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery) rose—
Mr. Bell: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment, but first I want to finish my sentence. I hope that that is not unreasonable. I was saying that 60 cases went to the industrial tribunal and in the first 59 the man or woman concerned did not even suggest that he or she had been dismissed for seeking to join a union. In the 60th case

577
he or she made that suggestion, but it was not upheld by the tribunal. Before I give way, I point out that the Prime Minister has after all had to make a nil return when asked for his evidence on the same topic.
Mr. Hooson: I should not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to spoil what he is saying by putting forward false facts. I have in front of me the tribunal's report and decision. I quote from paragraph 1 under the heading "Reasons". It states:
"There are 59 applicants before us, all former employees of the Respondent. They complain that they were dismissed because they joined a trade union and fought for its recognition and accordingly that the dismissals were unfair".
That was their case, and the unanimous decision was that
"These applications fail and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who intervene will be hoping later to take part in the debate. I hope that they will get a good hearing if they are called.
Mr, Bell: If I have been misled, I am extremely sorry. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North will make his speech but if—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unreasonable for hon. Members to shout out from a sitting position, and quite out of character with the history of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it is out of character if we go back further than five years. If hon. Members who have indicated to me that they wish to speak will restrain themselves, I hope that there will be a chance for them to do so.
Mr. Bell: It is an awful waste of time. As I was saying, if I am wrong, I certainly withdraw. I understood from my hon. Friend that the employees had not raised the issue. If it be the case that they raised it and they failed on that ground, the net result is the same. Anyway, that was really a parenthesis in considering the court of inquiry that the Secretary of State is proposing to set up.
There is little dispute on the facts. At the end of the day, what shall we get from the court of inquiry? Will it say "The employees must be overruled. They have
578
to join APEX."? Is that the sort of thing that the court of inquiry can say? If it says that, is anyone to accept that in advance as binding?
The point that I wish to make is that the issues are political. They are not justiciable issues; they are political issues of the widest significance.
There has been talk about conciliation, but let there be no mistake—the intention is that conciliation should be the organisation of surrender by Mr. Ward, rather like the conciliation in the Race Relations Act. The question is: how are we to get it? What has enraged the union and certain Labour Members and has led to talk about solidarity has been that, for once, they have come up against somebody who does not crumple. The trouble is that, since the end of the war, all the militancy has been on one side. Certain hon. Gentlemen opposite take it for granted that that should be so and that the onward crushing of this machine should not be stopped. The unions are coercive organisations. When they have mobilised their armies they will turn them against the community, force all of us to accept what they want, and extract unreasonable concessions.
We have heard talk of moderation, conciliation, reasonableness and compromise, but there is a great deal too much of it. There are some who, if they met Apollyon straddling the path, would want conciliation and a reasonable compromise. There are those who would compromise with the devil.
I do not know the merits of the Grun-wick dispute as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, but I recognise that, for almost the first time in my recollection, someone has stood up against the coercive powers of the trade unions, with all their threats and mobilisation, and intends to go on standing up to them and, if possible, to win.
The coercive combinations of the trade unions have almost destroyed industry in this country, wrecked our productivity and corroded the constitution. Gang warfare has taken over and challenges not only the rule of law, but democracy itself.
These yelling crowds outside the Grunwick Processing Laboratories— [HON. MEMBERS: "And inside."]—are a threat to our way of life, as the Secretary

579
of State knows, If he had been there yesterday, I understand that he would have heard speeches by trade union leaders saying who would be there on Wednesday, Thursday, and so on, and calling for intensification of all the boycotts and for what the hon. Member for Bolsover would call union solidarity.
Mr. Skinner: That is right
Mr. Bell: This engine, which has destroyed our communal life, is destroying our freedoms and will destroy our nation. Unless it is faced uncompromisingly, as Mr. Ward has faced it, I see no future for democracy in this country. That is why I am happy to move this motion, and I shall be a little sorry if we do not vote on it.
5.5 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): In the last words of his statement this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expressed the hope that we should have a debate of a kind that would help, not hinder, the effort that the Government have now made to find a peaceful solution to the Grunwick dispute. In the closing part of his speech, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) showed his contempt for that appeal. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who, I understand, will be following me, will forcibly express their view on the kind of remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield.
I hope that, throughout the debate, we shall have a series of speeches that will seek to help, not hinder, the effort to find a peaceful solution. Certainly I shall not say anything that will seek to hinder that solution.
It seemed to me that the kernel of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield affecting me came immediately before the concluding passage in his speech. It was to the effect that the rule of law requires that when prima facie offences have been committed, those concerned and ultimately the Attorney-General, must inevitably bring prosecutions or the rule of law is destroyed. If that, or anything like it, was the philosophy being presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is
580
totally contrary to what was pronounced in 1951 by Lord Shawcross—I shall be coming back to that in due course— which then received the support of all hon. Members concerned with the law and has since received the support of Law Officers.
Mr. Ronald Bell: That was not what I said. I said that the balance must not lie between enforcing the law in defence of the individual and the danger of retaliatory action on the part of others.
The Attorney-General: We shall see in Hansard tomorrow what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. If he is not supporting what I suggested was the effect of his words, I am glad to hear it. None the less, it is right that in due course I should remind the House of the proper principle, because only in the light of that principle can the House decide upon the Tightness both of my actions and of those of the Post Office.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) rose—
The Attorney-General: Therefore, I shall remind the House of the facts relating to the Post Office.
Grunwick's mail is handled at three main sorting offices: West Central, Cricklewood and Willesden. The bulk of its incoming mail, containing incoming work and cash, is handled by the West Central district office. Small amounts of incoming mail also pass through the Willesden office and the Cricklewood office, but not, apparently, orders.
The company has been collecting its mail from both the West Central and Willesden offices, but not, apparently, Cricklewood, which is the main office handling Grunwick's outgoing mail. One day's mail—64 bags—is still being held at Cricklewood, as I told the House last week. Since 16th June, Grunwick has not delivered mail to that office.
The Post Office has a responsibility to provide services to the community without showing preference towards, or discrimination against, any of its customers. In so far as any postal officer, whoever he may be, offends against that obligation, prima facie, at any rate, he is committing an illegal and criminal act,

581
which, of course, we condemn, just as we condemn those who, for example, show violence on the picket line, whether to or by pickets, and those who, in a totally different sphere, do not provide the necessary company returns required by law.
All these things are illegal and criminal acts, which are to be condemned, and it is a matter of degree, obviously, as to the extent of the damage which they may do. But, as I said to the House on 23rd June, the Post Office is best placed to establish the facts and to take decisions affecting the delivery of mail to the public generally.
It had, therefore, to consider very carefully the consequences of its actions in the interest of users of the postal services as a whole, and the wider implications of precipitate action on its part. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested, now that he has made his speech, but perhaps I will leave him to continue his conversation. This was bound to include the impact of any action on its part on the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, which were directed towards early resolution of the dispute between Grunwick and the union. The Post Office, however, as early as 17th June, posted notices to warn its staff that anyone deliberately delaying mail contrary to his duty would put himself at risk of prosecution.
I believe that the attitude of the Post Office and its chairman in this very difficult and very delicate situation has been constructive and responsible. Let me also make it absolutely clear that the action taken at Cricklewood, as I said last week, was against the advice of the Union of Post Office Workers, and I think it right for the House to pay tribute to the continuing efforts of Mr. Tom Jackson, the General Secretary of the union, who has done everything in his power to persuade his members to work normally. While he was still trying, however, and, indeed, while we might have hoped that the Grunwick dispute could be ended by mediation, it was, in my view, entirely reasonable for the Post Office to delay further action, that might have made a solution more difficult.
On 23rd June I made my statement to the House. As I informed the House
582
then, I asked the chairman of the Post Office to inform me of the steps that he had taken, or proposed in the immediate future to take, in accordance with the responsibilities of the Post Office.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield yesterday, totally mis-described that reply. In making his statement to the House, asking for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, what he said was that in answering the Private Notice Question I had said that I would make inquiries about the probable reaction if I were to prosecute for breaches of the Post Office Act. That was not true at all. It was equally untrue to say, as he did, that we had heard nothing since, and equally untrue to speak about my inaction.
On the contrary, I did what I said I was doing. I wrote to the Chairman of the Post Office and I had a reply from him, telling me what he proposed to do. He told me that the Post Office considered that in view of its statutory duties and responsibilities and in view of the diminishing hope of an early resolution of the dispute at Grunwick, it had decided that, notwithstanding all the efforts that were being made to resolve that dispute, it could not stand by and allow the situation to continue indefinitely.
The letter told me of the action that the Post Office intended to take. That action it has taken. Indeed, the action was taken yesterday morning, and it was on the tapes at 1.30 p.m. yesterday. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not seen it before he made his application, I can only regret that he had not taken that trouble.
Notices were posted in the Cricklewood office yesterday which first reminded the staff of the warning given on 17th June, of the Post Office's responsibility to the community, and of the obligation on the staff, in accordance with the terms of their contracts, irrespective of their own personal views or beliefs, to handle mail in accordance with current instructions.
The notice finished with these words:
"Therefore staff who, contrary to instructions, are currently taking unofficial industrial action and discriminating against an individual customer by refusing to handle its mail or that of its correspondents must now resume full working in accordance with their duty.
If the staff concerned have not resumed normal working within 24 hours of the posting of this notice, they should know that they

583
will thereafter be formally directed to do so, and if they do not will be required to leave the premises: and until they are prepared to heed any such instructions as may be given to them, their pay will be stopped and the privilege of taking sick leave without a certificate will be withdrawn."
The Post Office has been placed in a situation in which whatever it decided to do would be subject to criticism. It took a responsible decision. I know that it considered the situation very seriously indeed, and from every point of view, be-for it concluded that the time had come to take disciplinary action.
The current position is that the staff, other than at Cricklewood, are reported to be working normally, and there has been no escalation of the dispute, despite the fact that there were certainly fears that that might take place. I understand, however, that at Cricklewood the mail awaiting outward sorting is still not being touched. The Post Office has now to judge the timing of the further action to which it has referred, or any other further action which may be appropriate in relation to the operational characteristics of the Cricklewood office.
I have asked the chairman to keep me closely in touch with the course of events. In the meantime, the Post Office would be right to take into account the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in deciding the course of further action. In view of my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon of his decision to set up a court of inquiry, I very much hope that all concerned will return to normal working immediately.
I am sure also that the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the serious issues involved, and that all participating in the debate will bear in mind the need not to say anything that will exacerbate the situation.
I want to say a few words, as I promised I would, about the responsibilities of the Attorney-General in a situation of this kind, and particularly in view of the tendentious words used by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfleld in opening the debate.
In January 1951 this House debated the decisions of Lord Shawcross, then Attorney-General, in not dissimilar circumstances, to prosecute some and not
584
to prosecute other workers who had taken part in illegal—that is to say —criminal strikes. It is interesting to observe that the words of the Daily Telegraph on that day were not dissimilar to what I understood to be suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman in opening the debate. What it said was:
"Is it not in fact a basic principle of the rule of law that the operation of the law is automatic (except when the law is specifically permissive and not mandatory) where the offence is known or suspected? Is not the arbitrary implementation of the law just as offensive to the elementary motion of justice as an arbitrary law?"
At least one hon. Member opposite says "Yes" to that today.
The then Attorney-General gave the true answer, and I must quote at some length from what he said, because this is a matter of the gravest possible importance, and I hope to have the full support of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon.
Lord Shawcross said:
"I think the true doctrine is that it is the duty of an Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to authorise the prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect which the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public morale and order, and with any other considerations affecting public policy.
In order to inform himself he may ask his colleagues who are charged with ministerial responsibilities although, of course, he cannot
"shift his responsibility for making the decision on to the shoulders of his colleagues."
He went on:
"If political considerations which, in the broad sense that I have indicated, affect government in the abstract arise, it is the Attroney-General, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations."
Lord Shawcross continued with these words that are so much in point in this debate:
"Questions have been raised, I know, in regard to prosecutions in respect of illegal strikes under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order … The law laid down by that Order, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, is not always easy to apply to all industrial disputes in peace-time. If one prosecutes too soon, it may only exacerbate the difficulties and impede the opportunities of settling the dispute by negotiation or arbitration. Prosecution may result in the individuals proceeded against being made martyrs in the opinion of their colleagues, and instead of leading to the observance of the

585
law it may produce even greater disregard of it and so bring the law further into disrepute." —[Official Report, 29th January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 683–4.]
That is what I had in mind the other day when I spoke about the true meaning of peaceful picketing and said that there will be no martyrs in this particular dispute.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman remembers, at the time of the postal workers suggested blocking of South African mail he gave as his reason for not prosecuting that it would cause the sort of widespread political and industrial chaos about which he is talking. In the event an injunction was granted by the courts and the post office to a man obeyed that injunction. Does not that instance make the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that his judgment was false on that occasion? On this occasion we think that his judgment continues to be false.
The Attorney-General: I do not think that my judgment was faulty. This is a matter which is now before the House of Lords and we are waiting for its judgment, not on whether my judgment was faulty but on the general issues of that case. The less I say about that the better.
Lord Shawcross went on:
"But whilst I would never allow a threat of criminal action to be used as a kind of pawn in industrial relations, I shall not hesitate to prosecute in what The Times described as 'appropriate cases' and 'at the appropriate time'."—
again I agree with him and endorse what he said—
"The public cannot be held to ransom nor the law as it is at present be brought into complete disrepute.
"On the other hand, there may well be circumstances in which the public convenience is not affected by the strike or in which, for other reasons, the public interest is not served by prosecution. Lord Birkenhead, again, in one case felt that the public interest was best met by a withdrawal of proceedings which had already been started, on an undertaking by the individuals concerned to resume work. I cannot pretend to lay down in advance any rules on which I should act in these matters. I am always loth to proceed against the rank and file in an industrial dispute where the real inciters and leaders have succeeded in covering up their activities."—[Official Report, 29th January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 684–5.]
Lord Shawcross there set out clearly the various public interest aspects which
586
it is necessary to consider. Indeed, he clearly put forward the argument in opposition to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
Mr. Fan-bairn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to a much more serious public issue which arises in this matter? That is, that a group of people by action known to be illegal or industrial can suspend prosecution against themselves by that threat. That is an issue on which the Attorney-General should address the House.
The Attorney-General: Of course I address myself to that issue. That is absolutely inherent in everything that I have quoted from what Lord Shawcross said. Unfortunately, the public interest does not produce easy decisions. These are matters of balance. This is a matter on one side, and other factors to which Lord Shawcross referred are matters on the other side. As Lord Shawcross rightly said, what the Attorney-General has to do is to make the right decision at the right time. At the moment my view is that any suggestion that it would be right at this time and in these circumstances, after all that my right hon. Friend has done and in the situation as it now is, to consider prosecution would be totally wrong, counter-productive and would be the very opposite of what Lord Shawcross was saying.
Sir Michael Havers: I have been listening with care to what the Attorney-General said about the speech of Lord Shawcross, which is well known in the Law Officers' Department. Does not the Attorney-General agree that the public interest cannot be served if a company is forced into liquidation by reason of illegal action?
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as have other hon. Members, puts a factor which is one of the public interest factors that one must obviously have regard to. My hope is that nothing of the sort will arise. My hope is that with the support and advice of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) the company will see sense. I hope that it will take part in this inquiry and that it will put its case before the court of inquiry, and before the very distinguished gentlemen who compose the court of

587
inquiry, so that both sides of the argument can be looked into and examined by members of the court of inquiry.
I very much hope that the company will not do so on the basis that if the report is in its favour it will accept it but that if the report is against it, it will reject it. That appears to be the way in which the matter has been put before us this afternoon. I hope that both sides will accept the court of inquiry on the basis that they will accept whatever its conclusions may be. If they do that, then the situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned will be quite irrelevant.
I must read the final paragraph of what Lord Shawcross said in that debate, because it sums up the way in which I would deal with this matter and other matters within my responsibility. Lord Shawcross said:
"Summing up the whole matter, I can only say that so long as I hold my present office, I shall try to the best of my ability to continue to administer the duties of the office in what appears to me to be the public interest, and to do whatever i can at least to maintain, if not to strengthen, the influence of the office in the promotion of justice, as well as its traditional independence and integrity."—[Official Report, 29th January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 688.]
Everything that he said in that speech was accepted and confirmed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench at the time. It has, as the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon knows, been the basis of decisions of Attorney-Generals and Law Officers ever since. He knows very well —I hope that he will not say anything whatever to the contrary—that this balance of the public interest is one that every Law Officer has had to consider and decide upon. It is not simply a question that offences have been committed and therefore the time has come to prosecute, as the Daily Telegraph then suggested.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon asked me a Private Notice Question last week, I explained the situation and said that the right course, as I saw it, was for me to find out more about the situation and then make up my mind whether I should take the matter out of the hands of the Post Office, and I emphasised that it was only in the most exceptional circumstances that it would be right to take that course, because the Post
588
Office knew the facts and had the public responsibility for seeing that the mail was delivered.
I do not believe, on the facts as I have learned them today and as I have explained them to the House, that the time has now come when it would be right for me to take that action. Yesterday, when this matter was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Beacons-field—it may be without all the facts before him, because he had not read the tape—I did not believe that it was then the right time to do so. I hope that the House will support me in that view.
5.30 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: This is a debate about the rule of law, and no subject could be more important to this House.
There are two main facets of the rule of law in the Grunwick affair, separate but linked by a shared significance and common implications—that is to say, the picketing aspect and the Post Office aspect. In a short debate one has to be selective, and I intend to confine myself mainly to the Post Office aspect, which is the specific subject and occasion of the application of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and his speech today.
This is not at all because I underestimate in any way the lamentable situation in regard to the picketing and the disastrous implications that it has for the rule of law. In the words of Lord Denning, "The mobs are out", and mob law and the rule of law cannot co-exist. It is a situation fraught with great danger and detriment.
However, there is one significant distinction between the two situations—that of the picketing and that of the Post Office. The evils of the picketing situation thrive because, or at any rate partly because, the law is not or is not recognised to be, sufficiently clear and adequate. The Post Office law, on the other hand, is clear and adequate. It is only the will to enforce it which is lacking.
The law on picketing is unsatisfactory because Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 does not go far enough in providing statutory limitations and restrictions on picketing which are clearly recognisable and readily enforceable. That this is so is the fault

589
of this Government in insisting on framing the provisions of Section 15 as they did—[Interruption.] I hope that the Gov-ment supporter who is making all the noise will save the time of the House by obeying the injunction of Mr. Speaker and refraining from those sedentary observations which seem to come so naturally to his temperament and his mentality, such as it is.
Section 15 is an imperfect one which is in need of amendment, and it makes possible a situation such as that at Grunwick. But on the Post Office aspect, this is not so. The law is clear and it is satisfactory.
An hon. Member said last week by way of criticism that the Post Office Act 1953 reflected the wording of an Act of 1710. So what? Magna Carta was 1215, and even this Government have not sought to repeal it—at any rate, as yet.
The Post Office Act follows very properly the pattern of balance, the pattern of reciprocity, which lies at the heart of our constitutional and legal arrangements. Where there are rights, there are duties. Where there are privileges, there are obligations. That is the basis and structure of a civilised society.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that I always give way save in these three-hour debates, when I think it is unfair to other hon. Members who wish to speak. I am genuinely sorry, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Not only has the Post Office, therefore, the exclusive right to deliver mail; it has the proper and peremptory duty to deliver mail. This duty, within his own sphere and competence, is shared by every postal worker. The exclusive right, the monopoly right, is conferred by Section 3(1) of the Post Office Act. The Post Office has, within the British postal area, the exclusive privilege of conveying from one place to another and of performing all the incidental services, of receiving, collecting, dispatching, and delivering letters. That is to say, the Post Office has a statutory monopoly.
590
The Act goes on to provide for the enforcement of the Post Office's monopoly right and its protection against infringement. That is in Section 4, which provides that anyone seeking to send letters other than by post or collecting them for that purpose—in other words, anyone seeking to infringe the Post Office monopoly—is liable on summary conviction to a fine in respect of each letter. There is, therefore, a sufficient and substantial statutory protection of the Post Office monopoly.
So, in return, true to the pattern of reciprocal and complementary rights and duties, the law specifies the corresponding duty. On that, Section 58 is clear and explicit:
"If any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty … wilfully detains or delays, or procures or suffers to be detained or delayed, any … postal packet, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment or to a fine, or to both."
So the duty is clear, and the breach of that duty is clear in the circumstances of this case.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No, it is not.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The only question is: who should prosecute, and when?
The answer to that second question is clear. It is on the time factor. There has been a long history of this flagrant breach of duty. The Attorney-General was defending his position and procrastinating in the House as long ago as 13th December last year, more than six months ago. Clearly, further delay cannot be justified. Indeed, the delay to date cannot properly be justified.
Who, then, should prosecute? The Attorney-General says "If anyone, the Post Office." The Post Office no doubt says "If anyone, the Attorney-General." Each waits on the other, and nothing happens. It is the Battle of Walcheren all over again—
"Great Chatham with his sabre drawn
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
The Attorney-General says that prosecutions under the Post Office Act are normally undertaken by the Post Office and not by the Director of Public Prosecutions. But there is nothing in the Act to

591
say that there must be. In a normal situation, yes, but this is scarcely a normal situation. This is borne out by the fact that the Attorney-General says—and relies on it to defend his action—that
"there have in fact been no prosecutions under the relevant sections in circumstances of a similar nature."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 965.]
Why have there not been? Previously, it has been unthinkable that postal workers should act in this way in deliberate breach of their statutory duty and defiance of the law.
In what the Attorney-General calls "normal circumstances", the people prosecuted by the Post Office are not Post Office workers but outsiders who steal mail, and so on. There are different considerations when they are employees. I can well understand the reluctance of the Post Office to prosecute its own employees. The Post Office has done all that it thinks it can do. It has suspended them without pay. But, unfortunately, even that sanction has been torpedoed by the action of the union in making good their pay.
So, if the Attorney-General continues in his present inaction and the Post Office in its, the only incentive to stop the breach of the law will be a continuance of holidays with pay in the summer months. If the Post Office does not prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions must do so. The Attorney-General seeks to extend the same flimsy protection over himself and the Post Office. He enunciated a doctrine that he calls the doctrine of balance, but stripped of that patina of respectability it simply amounts to the belief that the enforcement of the law is unnecessary or impractical if there is a sufficient number of people combining to seek to break it. That is the nub of the matter. And that is why failure to take action must strike at the heart of the rule of law.
I have some sympathy with the Attorney-General in his position. In a sense he is caught up in a conflict of loyalties. On the one hand there is his loyalty to the supposed interest of trade unionism— I do not think that it is their true interest, though I concede that he may think so. On the other hand there is his loyalty to the great principle of the rule of law.
The Attorney-General: Having put it that way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might at least give me credit for
592
being honest in the view that I have expressed—that the effect on the public interest must be weighed against the question of an immediate prosecution. It is not a question of my agreement with and support for trade unionism. It is a question of the effect of an action of that kind —rightly or wrongly—on the public mail generally.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Before I comment on that may I say to the hon. Member for Walton, to whom I refused to give way earlier, that I gave way to the Attorney-General because I specifically mentioned him in my speech.
Of course I accept the Attorney-General's explanation of his motives in this matter. I have a high personal regard for him and I have known him for a long time. But in all candour I must say that his judgment has been persistently at fault in this matter. I would be lacking in candour and in my duty if I said otherwise. I think that the Attorney-General has been caught in a conflict of loyalties, but the lesson to be learned from such a conflict is that the lesser should give way to the greater loyalty. There is no greater loyalty in a free society than loyalty to the rule of law and no single citizen owes that loyalty more than the Attorney-General.
I conclude by pointing out that the rule of law is indivisible. If we allow one part of the structure to weaken, we endanger the whole edifice. It is like those great dams built for the protection of the Low Countries. A breach suffered in one part that is not repaired will allow the flood waters to pour in and obliterate and destroy the familiar landmarks of our free society. If we allow the rule of law to be eroded and subverted, very soon the lamps of liberty will be extinguished. These are the great issues which are behind the debate today —the maintenance of the rule of law and all that depends on it for a free and orderly society. It is for this House above all to be vigilant in its protection.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I feel a little diffident because the debate so far has been a closed shop for lawyers and legalistic arguments, and I am not a learned gentleman. I hope in my remarks to deal with the major thesis of the rule of law.

593
Is the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) saying to the House that the letter of the law—Clause 5, subsection 2 and all that jargon which ordinary mortals like me have difficulty in understanding —must be applied at all times and at all costs without considering the public interest? I must point out that use of the law in that way caused trouble when so used by the Government in which he served, and two notable people, who were called the Shrewsbury Two, caused a situation in which an individual called the Treasury Solicitor had to undo the rule of law which was put forward by the Conservatives.
Sir D. Walker-Smith Sir D. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Pavitt: No, I shall not give way. The last time I had the privilege of pressing this case it was also during a three-hour debate, and in such short debates it is unfair to give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). A large number of hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate. The debate is due to finish at 7.34 p.m. Therefore, if we can keep down the number of interventions, more hon. Members will be able to take part.
Mr. Pavitt: First of all, may I put upon the record that this debate, although it has as a by-product the position of the Post Office workers, is basically about the Grunwick dispute in general terms, except for those matters that are precluded by the sub judice rule.
The newspapers this morning gave the erroneous impression that only Conservatives had been asking for the debate. I must point out that there were two other applications for an emergency debate on this matter from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and myself. On 22nd June I tabled Early-Day Motion No. 381, which was signed by more than 100 Members, asking for a debate. Therefore, the idea that this was something that Labour members did not want to talk about is entirely erroneous. I would add that not one hon. Member from the Opposition Benches signed my Early-Day Motion. However, it would be churlish
594
not to admit that my previous Early-Day Motion—No. 328—received support from all parties except the Scottish National Party. The SNP has got what it calls unilateral independence, which means that it does not trespass on English matters. That previous Early-Day Motion sought to cool the Grunwick situation, bring down the temperature and prevent the trouble from escalating.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said:
"I have been trying during recent months and years to lower the temperature of debates in the House on industrial relations."— [Official Report, 29th June, 1977; Vol. 934, c. 463.]
I welcome that statement very much as I believe that the right hon. Member and other Members on the Opposition Front Bench have as much head as they have other parts of their anatomy, and they want to see good relations and accord with the TUC. They want to talk sense without falling into any extreme political conditions.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East both based the whole of their case on the rule of law. It was on this issue that we had a similar debate on 4th November last. On that occasion we discussed Tom Jackson and his genuine assumption that when Mr. Ward said that he was prepared to mediate and negotiate, the matter would proceed on that basis. Now, more than six months later, that has not happened.
Nothing brings the rule of law more into disrepute than the projection of the image of law and order being used to support one class of society—that of which most lawyers are members—and leaving the rest of society as second-class citizens. Any conflict between workers and bosses in which the law can be used as a delaying tactic, and money can be provided—by whom?—to weight the outcome in favour of the rich and powerful and dispossess ordinary people of the right to put their case effectively, means that the man in the street loses faith in the law as a means of protection. This becomes a frustration, and the inevitable consequence is that he looks to other means which most of us would deprecate. Nevertheless, we must understand the frustrations that caused it.

595
I yield to no one in my respect for the postmen serving my area of Willesden and Cricklewood. They are the cream of the kind of person who creates good neighbourly relations. The postmen co-operate in helping the elderly and they are always ready to help when trouble arises. Recently, local Post Office workers have been in the forefront of a campaign organised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services called "Good neighbours". The postmen and the union have shown a responsibility to the community in that respect. Tom Jackson is always levelheaded; he is not a person who dashes round in circles making the wrong decisions.
I was delighted with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on this topic, but Tom Jackson must be profoundly disappointed that the assurances which he was given on 4th November in this Chamber did not materialise. In putting off action in terms of solidarity from his Post Office staff, Mr. Tom Jackson did not see any reciprocal development on the management side of Grunwick in fulfilling the solemn undertakings given in this House.
In the weary months—now 10—no voice has been raised by the Opposition about the conditions which led to last August's strike and sackings. I have in my hand a contract of employment consisting of three foolscap pages—the document which was in operation when the strike first started. It is an appalling document, but I hasten to say that when
"The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be".
The basic £25 in the contract last August is now nearer £38. There has been a change because the wages have been upped because of the strike, but basically what has now happened is that the management at Grunwick is determined not ever to have normal industrial relations. The management has done so because in future it may not be able to cut prices by employing cheap labour and also labour newly arrived from overseas. In other words, it will lose the edge in a competitive situation.
I wish to compare Grunwick with a factory only 300 yards away in the GEC group entitled Associated Automation.
596
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was one of the first to visit that factory, but he did not have the courtesy to inform me that he was doing so. Since 1971 I have tried hard to meet Mr. Ward of Grunwick. Indeed, this is the third time I have been engaged in that exercise. Letters and telephone calls from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), and from myself yielded no results. My right hon. Friend and I are the two constituency Members for the Willesden area, and it is immaterial where we draw the line because we give a mutual service to the whole of the area.
Last Monday week my right hon. Friend arranged to visit Associated Automation because of an industrial relations problem, but it was difficult for my right hon. Friend, who is a Minister, to make that visit because he was speaking in a debate in the House that afternoon. Therefore, my right hon. Friend courteously sought to make a change in the arrangements, but he desisted when he learned that the Chairman of GEC arranged to cancel a visit to Germany in order to meet by right hon. Friend and me. He travelled specially from Birmingham to see us. He had arranged for the chief personnel officer of GEC to meet us, together with Mr. Seeley, the factory manager. We had one and a half hours' discussion before we both visited the Grunwick pickets 300 yards away.
On the other side of the coin, I challenge any hon. Member to say whether he has ever been refused an interview by the head of any local firm. Normally, there are reasonable relations between Members of Parliament and local industries. But that does not apply to Mr. Ward, who does not even answer letters. Certainly the mutual exchange of views with the GEC Chairman and his staff was extremely helpful to industrial relations. I certainly do not see a Grunwick situation arising at the GEC factory.
It is interesting to note that at Grunwick although wages of only £25 were paid last August for a 35-hour week, with a half-hour's overtime without payment, one had only to go to a factory 300 yards away to find unskilled female labour earning £49 per week with proper overtime. I could continue retailing the differences between good and bad industrial

597
relations between the good factory which I have mentioned in the GEC group and the sweat-shop just down the road.
I accuse Mr. Ward of being not nonunion put positively anti-union. My experience in a period of six years is that he is a very determined man, and therefore I am worried about the outcome of the court of inquiry because I doubt whether he will accept its results. If Mr. Ward has no union in his factory as a watchdog on conditions and pay, the advances secured in 1977 will remain frozen year after year. The only way in which progress can be made is via discussion across the table between men and management. And that means union organisation.
This dispute is about the right to join a union. In the 1972 dispute the claim made at Grunwick was that men were not sacked for joining a union but were put off because they were surplus labour. At the same time I saw certain trade journals in which Grunwick was recruiting people to replace those who had been sacked. At the end of 1972 and the beginning of 1973, Mr. Ward was sacking about one worker a week. When this was happening Mr. Ward was also showing the need to advertise for more workers.
I accept what has been said by some Opposition Members—namely, that there is a right for a man not to join a union if he does not want to, but that matter has never been in doubt. Indeed, Mr. Roy Grantham has never sought to say anything different. I regret to say that on the picket line only last week I heard Mr. Gouriet make a false statement to reporters outside Grunwick. He said that the dispute had taken place because the union was demanding a closed shop. That was a lie. There has been no question of denying rights to those who do not want to join a union.
I apologise if I am somewhat burned up on this issue, but it is a burning issue for my constituents. Unlike the hon. Member for Hendon, North, I have accorded him the courtesy of informing him that I intend in this debate to talk about his conduct. I wish that occasionally when I see him, as I have done four or five times in the last fortnight, he would at least do me the courtesy of saying "Good morning" as he goes into that factory in my area.
598
The hon. Gentleman carries a large measure of responsibility for all that has happened in the last 10 months. I am glad that he has to live with his conscience and that I do not. I accuse the hon. Gentleman of intervening to secure, not industrial ends, but his own political ends. Unless the hon. Gentleman lacks all intelligence, he must have known that the prolongation of the conflict would have dire consequences. He had a choice and he chose to prolong it. He knew that if mediation were not accepted by Mr. Ward, as it was accepted by the union and by Mr. Roy Grantham, there would be an escalation of the situation. He chose escalation. He knew that if he could maintain and fuel Mr. Ward's obstinacy, conciliation would give way to confrontation. The hon. Gentleman chose confrontation and enjoyed it.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman knew that if he could fan the flames for long enough the Post Office would seek to put them out. He fanned the flames, and last week it was the Post Office workers who sought to put out those flames. I thank God that on the Opposition Benches there are many others with more political integrity and compassion who command my respect and that the hon. Gentleman is not representative of the best interests of his party.
It is to compassion that I turn as my plea to this House.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield made a plea for the rule of Parliament, and I endorse his plea for Parliament to have an effect on the issue. Parliament should seek to influence the cause of the chronic illness rather than merely to treat the symptoms. My constituents in Chapter Road, Dollis Hill Lane and Cooper Road include housewives who want to go shopping, children who want to go to school and senior citizens who want to go to Robert Owen House—which has a fine name in my area and does a good job of work in social services. They want to pursue their normal lives, but they are living in a hell that is not of their own making. This is a situation that one of the most conciliatory of all trade unions—APEX—has been seeking to resolve since last November. For that reason if for no other, the House should throw its weight behind the court of inquiry and the conference table in seeking peace rather than leaving

599
these people in the middle of a battlefield.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. John Gorst: The matter now before the House is of transcendent importance to everyone in the country.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) declare his interest in the Grunwick company?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary to declare one's interest, but the interest of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is pretty well known to the House.
Mr. Gorst: I have no interest whatsoever to declare other than the interests of my own constituent, Mr. George Ward, and one or two of the people who work for him who are also my constituents.
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) should declare his interest, which was pretty well known, to the House. Since he has now told us that he has no interest whatsoever in this matter, could you tell the House what allegation of interest you are making against my hon. Friend?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not making an allegation. Unless I am grievously mistaken, it is pretty well known that the hon. Member for Hendon, North has been adviser to the Managing Director of Grunwick. That is all.
Mr. Ridley: The words that you used, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hendon, North had an interest. You now say that what you meant was that he was an adviser to Grunwick. I must make the point that there is all the difference in the world between accusing him of having an interest and saying that he is an adviser, because the word "interest" implies that he has a financial interest, which he has now said he has not. I should be grateful if you would apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that my comments require any apology. The word "interest" does
600
not automatically imply a financial interest. The hon. Member for Hendon, North has agreed that he has an interest because he has a constituent involved and because he has acted as his adviser and spokesman. That is all that I have said.
Mr. Gorst: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am not exaggerating in the least when I say that upon the outcome of this matter will depend, on the one hand, whether citizens in our society are allowed to conduct their affairs under the rule of law, without regard to whether what they do is popular or not, and, on the other hand, whether they will be required to do nothing that may offend powerful vested interests.
It is claimed that the British people will not suffer to be ruled by tyrants. However, the resolution of the Grunwick issue will show whether we can still make that proud boast.
I assert that in all matters of substance my constituent, Mr. George Ward, Managing Director of Grunwick, has been in the right. I further assert that his defeat would be a serious blow to the freedom of the individual, to the rights of small business men and to the future of democratic government in this country. Throughout, this dispute has been bedevilled by a cacophony of lies and claptrap at which the enemies of individual liberty have for long been skilled. I have been into the Grunwick factory, I have talked to the ordinary workers and discussed the issue with Mr. Ward and his management. I am in a unique position to deny categorically the scurrilous allegations made, not simply by the Marxist howling mobs outside Grunwick's gates but by the allegedly moderate APEX, which has at every point tried to distort the facts and to mislead the public.
What are the facts? Ten months ago the management of Grunwick dismissed a worker because he refused to do this job properly. He had not been employed by the firm for any great length of time. Indeed, he intended to leave the firm in a matter of weeks, which is a fact that may well explain why he was not doing his job properly. His dismissal led to a number of other workers walking off the job without permission. There is little doubt in the minds of the management

601
that this was a pre-planned exercise—but I must say at once that that cannot be proved. It can be only inferred from what subsequently happened.
It is of the utmost importance that the House should know that it is not merely the assertion of the management but the admission of APEX that not one of those who walked off the job was a member of APEX or any other trade union. Surely that is a significant fact. Not a single person among those who walked off the job had ever been to the management to ask for trade union bargaining rights nor had they even mentioned trade unions in any context whatsoever.
The Attorney-General: I have hesitated to intervene, but the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is trespassing right across the whole field of the dispute in the ACAS issue, which I understood was sub judice and about which Mr. Speaker made a clear pronouncement earlier.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was just wondering how far the hon. Member for Hendon, North was going to go into this matter, but I agree with the Attorney-General that we are getting dangerously near sub judice matters.
Mr. Gorst: The matters that are sub judice concern the ACAS report on trade union recognition.
It is of the utmost importance that the House should know that it is not merely the assertion of management but the admission of APEX that not one of those people who walked off the job was a member of APEX or of any other trade union. It was only after they had walked off the job that they rang up the TUC and asked for advice. What happened next was that they joined APEX and were subsequently fairly dismissed by the management. Of course, that chain of events has led APEX to claim that they were dismissed for joining a trade union. They were not. I have the authority—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Hendon, North is now going too far into sub judice matters, and I ask him to depart from that line of argument.
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When Mr.
602
Speaker was in the Chair the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) dealt with that point, and under that ruling the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) should be allowed to make that point.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker I did refer to that point. While the ACAS matter is sub judice, the matters that have been to the industrial tribunal for decision have never been sub judice, and this point is included in those matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry that I was not present when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, but I accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) that Mr. Speaker allowed this point. Obviously there must be continuity of rulings, and therefore I shall let the hon. Member for Hendon, North continue.
Mr. Gorst: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not be dealing with matters that are sub judice.
I have the authority of Mr. Ward to repeat what he has said on every occasion that this point has been put to him. The people dismissed were dismissed for leaving their work without permission. They would have been dismissed for breaking their contracts in this way, whether they joined APEX or not. Mr. Ward has always regarded APEX as irrelevant in this dispute.
Apparently it takes time for the truth to do its work. I repeat that the industrial tribunal heard 60 cases arising from the dismissals and found in every case that no unfair dismissal had taken place.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gorst: No. Too many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, he does not have to. If he is allowed to continue, more hon. Members will be able to take part in the debate.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it acceptable that an hon. Member should distort the report

603
of an industrial tribunal as the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has done?
Mr. Gorst: It was even claimed that the sacked employees were dismissed for joining a trade union, but the industrial tribunal did not find that allegation proved.
The House may well think that it is a very strange kind of trade union recognition dispute when those involved never were members of a trade union or contemplated joining one whilst they were at work. What APEX did was to recruit non-union employees after a dispute with management had commenced and, to put the matter in the mildest possible way, to seek to mislead the public that they were battling against an employer who sacked his workers because they were trade unionists. This is only the first of many verbal frauds that have been employed against Grunwick management.
Another farrago of nonsense used to justify the unjustifiable has been to claim that Mr. Ward, who is himself an Anglo-Indian, is a racist employing slave labour and that his oppressed employees worked in the most appalling conditions and were so denied basic human dignity that they even had to raise their hands to secure permission to go to the lavatory. This rubbish, which first saw the light of day in the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star, is false and it has been added to by many other falsehoods.
I ask the House: would anyone stand so loyally beside a racist, a tyrant, and an appalling employer of this kind? Would 260 frightened workers, most of them females, face such violent intimidation at their place of work if this were really true?
After the favourable verdict for Grunwick at the industrial tribunal one would have thought that in a law-abiding society —in Britain as it used to be—that would have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately, trade union arrogance has become boundless. The unions have decided that if Grunwick could not be beaten by fair means, it must be beaten by foul ones. If law cannot yield success, the field must be given over to force.
So we have seen violent picketing, unlawful blacking of Grunwick's mail, and this whole sorry story of conflict and
604
riot which stems directly from the refusal of APEX and other trade unions to accept that they cannot have their way in each and every case. They will not accept that others, besides themselves also have their rights.
Perhaps the most cynical stance has been that of Mr. Tom Jackson, the UPW General Secretary. Whilst urging his Cricklewood members not to break the law, he has assured them that they will be paid while they do so. Surely this conduct of the union is that of an accessory both before and after the fact.
No one should suppose that my constituent, Mr. George Ward, has had an easy task in upholding his legal rights. Indeed, he could well be faced with three or four simultaneous occasions of legal proceedings, putting an enormous strain on the time and resources of any man. They could break the stoutest of hearts. How has this been allowed to happen?
It has happened because the Government allow trade union leaders immunity to traduce their opponents during a trade dispute. It has happened because the Government have never been willing to enforce Mr. Ward's undoubted right to have his mail delivered. It has happened because what the Government are prepared to call a peaceful picket is, beyond question, a violent demonstration. Finally, it has happened because, unhappy with the laws they ought to be enforcing, the Government take refuge in a judicial inquiry. With Governments such as this, for how much longer will any ordinary citizen be able to exercise against trade unions even those diminished legal rights that he still possesses?
The indictment against the Government is that they have played in this whole affair a very sorry rôle. Unwilling to stand up for the law when it was clearly being broken, they have nevertheless been ever-willing to see a small business man's undoubted legal rights trampled under by force while his loyal workers have been coerced by fear.
If Grunwick are beaten, it will be a sorry day for liberty under the law; it will be a matter subsequently for bitter regret and reproach. I ask the House not to listen to devious appeals designed to destroy the citizen's legal rights but to tell the Government bluntly that their

605
overriding duty is to uphold those freedoms to which every subject, including Mr. George Ward, is entitled.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: As the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has taken an active part in the proceedings at the Grunwick plant, I want to treat seriously everything he has said, and in order to do so I have no intention of entering a slanging match with him over the more rhetorical parts of his speech.
In contrast to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), the hon. Member for Hendon, North knows what happened at the industrial tribunal. I do not wish to take the hon. and learned Member to task because we do not have time for that, but from his long experience in the House he will know that it is no excuse, on being found to have misrepresented the legal position at the industrial tribunal, to point an outstretched arm at the hon. Member for Hendon, North and say "He informed me that this was so". The hon. and learned Member knows that a document has been available in the Library for several days. He raised this debate in his name. It is his responsibility. He had a duty to brief himself and not merely to say that someone else had informed him.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to take time referring to me and immediately started referring to me. I said that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was more fully informed than I—and he plainly is. After all, this so-called misinformation arose from my saying, as I thought correctly, that a point had not even been raised before the industrial tribunal. In fact, it was raised and the tribunal did not find in favour of it. I do not see an awful lot of difference in that.
Mr. Mendelson: That is the lamest possible excuse and it has made the hon. and learned Member's position even worse.
I return to matters that are more important. I wish to discuss not the matters that he hon. Member for Hendon, North outlined but issues that involved the rights of our citizens under the law and under
606
the ordinary human relations that have been established by the trade union movement of Great Britain as a model for other countries. That is an argument that has not yet been raised.
We are discussing the rights of workers to organise themselves in the defence of their interests. It is time to introduce that issue into the debate. I know the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has been making some efforts to improve his relations with the trade union movement. I have confidence that what I say will not be entirely lost on him at least.
We are discussing a group of workers who for many years have been lowly paid. Many of them are not well versed or informed about all the rights at their disposal to organise themselves. The shabby rhetoric of the hon. Member for Hendon, North put the situation in a different light.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked grandly in quotations from the Earl of Chatham. That is a poor way of dealing with this human problem. The majesty of the law can be invoked in many different ways. This afternoon it has been invoked merely as a barrier to defend a bad employer who does not want to carry out either the spirit or the letter of industrial relations as established by Parliament.
We must consider the attitude of this particular employer to attempts at a settlement. I regret that the beginning of the debate was hinged on the propagandist remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. It would have been better to begin discussing the problems of the industrial relations involved. That is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment last Thursday to make a statement to the House. He has now made such a statement which is useful.
Everyone should co-operate in trying to find a settlement. My right hon. Friend has worked hard to bring that about, but Mr. Ward has sabotaged all his attempts. No other word can be used to describe Mr. Ward's action. What is his excuse for refusing to co-operate with a mediator? What is preventing Mr. Ward from co-operating? In three or four long private discussions Mr. Ward has been asked to co-operate. I know that

607
my right hon. Friend does not want to be critical at the moment. He has just set up a court of inquiry and does not wish to make the situation more difficult.
It should be clearly stated in the House that Mr. Ward has had an opportunity of co-operating with the Secretary of State in the last four days. Why did he refuse to do so? He refused because he does not want a settlement. He wants to defeat his former employees. He does not want the dispute to be brought to a civilised conclusion.
Workers have the right to organise themselves but obstacles have been put in their way by Mr. Ward, with the full support of the hon. Member for Hendon, North. Mr. Ward says that under no circumstances will he reinstate the workers whom he has dismissed. That should be put on the record. How can there be a settlement if an employer says that he will not re-employ the people involved, even before the inquiry takes place? Under any Government, any inquiry to resolve a dispute would be frustrated from the beginning if one side stated that it would not co-operate.
Mr. Gorst: I want to help the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He is correct to say that Mr. Ward will not reinstate any of the workers who walked off the job and were legitimately dismissed. He has good reason, not merely because the law does not require him to do so but because if he reinstated one single person 260 workers would walk out.
Mr. Mendelson: That is a most valuable addition to the debate. It is of the greatest possible importance that that should be put on the public record.
I turn to the criticism by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield of workers who declare their solidarity. I say, all honour to the people who are on strike in this case. They deserve the support of all trade unionists and of those who believe in the freedom of workers to organise themselves. Without solidarity, the British trade union movement would never have been established. I represent an area where one of the earliest strikes took place. The scissor grinders in Sheffield, without the help—at that time two years before the introduction of the anti-combination laws in 1779—of those around them, would have been beaten into the
608
ground. Let not those who belong to the strict closed shop to which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield belongs try to deride the solidarity of those who combined to defend their essential interests.
We hope that the inquiry will result in a peaceful settlement. Nothing is more in the interests of the workers involved than that. We honour those who declare solidarity with the workers involved and who take appropriate action in doing so. I do not take back a word of what I have said about that. I hope it is fully recognised that, unless Mr. Ward and the hon. Member for Hendon, North change their attitude, there can be no solution to this tragic dispute.
6.28 p.m.
Sir Michael Havers: I wish that I had the time to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He is an attractive debater. Many hon. Members wish to speak. The Attorney-General kept strictly to the legal aspects, and I shall do the same.
One aspect of the issue is the failure by the Government ever since last August to indicate firmly that a wilful refusal to deliver the mail is a criminal offence. In the debate on 4th November last year, the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that discriminatory action by Post Office workers did not fall within Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953. The action then became official. Not until last Thursday, in answer to my Private Notice Ouestion, did the Attorney-General in terms concede that the action was a breach of that section. This delay has encouraged those who are hindering and delaying the mail.
On 16th June discriminatory action began again. About a week later the TUC fanned the flames. On 17th June, although we did not know about this until today, the Post Office posted a notice warning the staff of the consequences of this unofficial action. In my view it was reasonable, having posted those notices, for the Post Office and the chairman then to delay further action. I agree that what they did was right. On 23rd June the Attorney-General told us that he had written to the Chairman of the Post Office asking to be put in the picture about what was happening. Whether that was as a result of my Private Notice Ouestion or a

609
step that he intended to take anyway, I do not know. However, 23rd June was a week after this illegal action had started at Grunwick. Why was that not done before?
No one knew last Thursday whether the Post Office was doing anything at all about it. Yesterday we had the 24-hour ultimatum with an indication that a formal direction would be given if at 11.30 a.m. the mail was not moved as it should be. We heard the threats of a sit-in by the postal workers and we do not know what the position is now, save that the latest I have heard is that the Post Office has not as yet issued its formal direction. I do not know why. In my view, that formal direction should be issued immediately the 24-hour ultimatum is up.
What will happen if the direction is issued and the Post Office workers refuse to move or, if they do move, others are put in and also refuse to act properly in accordance with the law? The Attorney-General says that the Post Office must now judge the timing of future actions. I think that the formal direction ought to be given at once. As to future action, I agree that the Post Office is entitled to reconsider in view of the change that has occurred over the past 24 hours. First of all there is the ultimatum, which creates a new situation, and there is the statement by the Secretary of State today about the court of inquiry. If the ultimatum is not eventually enforced, it is a total waste of time. Failure to enforce it can only make things worse. I am not asking the Attorney-General to intervene today and take over the responsibilities of initiating prosecutions against these workmen.
The change of circumstances over the past 24 hours makes it even more important, as has been said by the Attorney-General, the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who responded to the Secretary of State's statement, that the Post Office workers must now be encouraged by everyone to discontinue their unofficial action and go back to work.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member
610
for what is an extremely helpful observation. May I take it from what he has just said that, having regard to the announcement of a court of inquiry, he would regard it as perfectly right for the Chairman of the Post Office at least to wait before doing something that might extend the conflagration in the hope that, as a result of the setting up of the court of inquiry, the postal officers at Crickle-wood will obey the instruction and go back to work?
Sir M. Havers: As I said—perhaps I did not make it clear—the timing in the immediate future must be a question for the Chairman of the Post Office. But it cannot be left indefinitely. There must come a time when it is no longer reasonable, on the Post Office's behalf, to do nothing. It may be that the Attorney-General would consider, in the early part of next week, coming to the House and making a statement about the situation.
I must say that I was interested to see the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had, quite properly if I may say so, taken over direct communication with the Chairman of the Post Office, because, although it had not been clear, perhaps, until last week, the ultimate responsibility here, if the Post Office fails to act reasonably, must lie upon the Attorney-General's shoulders, unpleasant as that may be for him.
I have been reading again the debate in 1951. I would like to add to this one passage from The Times to the point that the Attorney-General made. The Times said:
"If it is invoked"—
that is the right to prosecution—
"as soon as the alleged offence is reported opportunities for settling the dispute may be lost; if prosecution is delayed in the hope that the strike or lock-out will end, the law may be brought into disrepute. When several thousand men join together and strike, there is the invidious task of selecting only a few of them for prosecution".
There is the view expressed by Lord Shawcross and, I think, accepted—as the Attorney-General has told us—by all his successors in the Law Officers' Department.
The then Attorney-General said in the House:
"whilst I would never allow a threat of criminal action to be used as a kind of pawn in industrial relations, I shall not hesitate to

611
prosecute in what The Times described as 'appropriate cases' and at the 'appropriate time'. The public cannot be held to ransom nor the law as it is at present be brought into complete disrepute. On the other hand, there may well be circumstances in which the public convenience is not affected by the strike".—[Official Report, 29th January 1951; Vol. 483, c. 684.]
That might almost be entirely appropriate today.
I intervened during the Attorney-General's speech to point out to him that it can, in my view, never be in the public interest that a company should be forced into liquidation by illegal activities so that 65 people, or in this case 250 people, are thrown out of work. I would disagree with him when he takes the view, in answer to my intervention, that that is not an overriding matter of public interest. The moment that the law fails to intervene when someone can be forced into liquidation and people thrown out of work is the moment when the situation has got far beyond public convenience and is a matter of the greatest public importance.
The announcement of the court of inquiry, which I very much hope will be followed by the end of this discriminatory boycott by the postmen, is to be welcomed. There is one particular thing which the announcement by the Secretary of State has done. It has removed the anxiety I had when considering the approach that was made to Mr. Ward and Mr. Grantham to the effect that they must be bound by the decision of the mediator without the name of the mediator ever being disclosed. It is rather like an arbitration clause in a contract, in which both parties agree to arbitrate if a dispute arises, and in the event of failure to agree an arbitrator between them the president of the appropriate professional body nominates one.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I am aware that, in publishing the letters which I sent to the parties, I may have left this issue in doubt. I do not think there was any doubt in the minds of Mr. Ward or Mr. Grantham that the proposals I was making to them were subject to the person who was appointed as mediator being acceptable to them. I did not tell them the name, but I made it clear to them that they would both be told simultaneously, immediately before the proceedings, and that if they
612
disagreed we would not proceed on that course.
Sir M. Havers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is always a problem when one sees only what is published and when, quite properly, much has not been disclosed. If the Secretary of State had said "I shall appoint a High Court judge", that would have been enough. We have there a class of person of whom there can be no criticism. That was one of the worries I had, but it has now been relieved and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the gentlemen who have agreed to serve on such a high-powered and independent body to try to intervene in this case.
While we are left with this discriminatory action—and in my view the Post Officer workers' action is very much more serious than picketing in its consequences for the company—how can Mr. Ward be expected to play his part in the court of inquiry if this pressure is maintained? There is a risk that there may be nothing for a court of inquiry to consider if this illegal pressure continues. From the remarks of at least one trade union leader today, and it may be more, it seems to be the view of a number of union officials that they are confident that this boycott will bring the company to its knees within 72 hours. If that is the result, this debate will be a charade and the appointment of the court of inquiry will be a total waste of time.
It is of fundamental importance that the prssure should be relieved and the company allowed to continue and remain viable. Otherwise, because it has been so wholly dependent on the mail for its business, the risk of its being brought down in that way would make an absolute nonsense of what we have been doing today. I ask the Post Office, Mr. Jackson and all those concerned to realise this and to relieve the company from the pressure that it is now under, so that it can assist the court and enable it to come to a fair and proper decision.
The pressure must be removed because, quite apart from the individual case of Grunwick, if one company is destroyed by illegal action of that kind, unfortunately a part of democracy will also be destroyed. A failure of the rule of law to protect any individual or company, however small, against such illegal action must in the end diminish the rights of

613
us all. One success of this kind could well lead to a repetition against some other person or company.
I have a final point which has been made a number of times, but not, I think, in this debate. This sort of discriminatory action, this breaking of the obligation under Section 58, not only can be used in furtherance of a trade dispute but is a weapon which would be hideously effective against any other organisation or association. I am not sure that many of us would grumble too much if it were used against the Communist Party headquarters, but it might be used against Labour Party headquarters or Conservative Party headquarters. That would be a purely political interference which could be very serious.
That is one of the reasons why I find discriminatory action of this kind so terrifying for the future. That is why it must be stopped now. Best of all, it will end voluntarily, but if after a shortish time—and I fear that there is not much time left—the Post Office has unreasonably failed to act, unless the Attorney-General takes over we on the Conservative Benches will not be able to support him as we have done today.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: There is less than 40 minutes for Back Benchers to take part in the debate, and a considerable number still wish to do so. I plead with the House for that to be borne in mind.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) made a very restrained and constructive speech. I could not help thinking, when he referred to the public interest, of the situation in 1971–72 when there was a Post Office strike. His own Administration did not then invoke the law as the Conservatives are advocating today, simply because they did not want to exacerbate what was already a very difficult situation. There are no exact analogies in this situation, but one can well understand the restraint of the Attorney-General in considering whether to use this very blunt weapon.
As I listened to the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr.
614
Mendelson), following the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), I thought that if ever there was justification for an independent court of inquiry that was it, because it was so obvious to me that there were determined groups on both sides intent on exacerbating the situation. That is the truth of the matter. There was no kind of give or compromise whatsoever from either hon. Gentlemen.
The truth is that there are two irreconcilable interests here. A means must be found of bringing about a moderation of attitude. The hon. Member for Penistone, putting into words views expressed from sedentary positions by other hon. Members, said that we should go on putting all possible industrial pressure on the firm. I think that to the majority of people in this country that is unacceptable.
I say plainly to the hon. Gentleman that I have considerable sympathy with the case against Grunwick. I should have been more impressed by the case for Grunwick if the hon. Member for Hendon, North had not misled his right hon. and learned Friend and the House on the findings of the industrial tribunal. If he had complete confidence in his case, there would be no need to misrepresent anything. It is important that we put on record what the industrial tribunal actually found. Its unanimous decision was that the applications before it were dismissed "for want of jurisdiction". It did not even consider the question whether the dismissal was because the men had joined a trade union. It simply considered three preliminary points under paragraph 7 of Schedule I to the Act of 1974.
On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that the hon. Member for Hendon, North said with tremendous conviction that Mr. Ward had dismissed the people who were dismissed simply because they had left work. The one paragraph about the agreement in the tribunal's decision says:
"It is common ground that a number of the respondent's employees walked out from work on Monday afternoon, 23rd August 1976, and commenced a strike. Their action continued, they were joined by others, and on 2nd September 1976 the Company sent to each of the applicants a letter in common form stating that 'Your participation in strike action has brought the contract to an end, and accordingly your employment with this company has ceased'."

615
That was why they were dismissed. Why the hon. Member for Hendon, North had grossly to misrepresent that in this debate. I do not understand.
I should have thought that there was a formidable case for saying that there is a freedom for people not to join a union if they want not to join and that there is freedom for an employer not to have unions in his factory if he wants not to. It is the law, whether right hon. and hon. Members like it or not, and the law must be upheld on all sides. It seems to me, from various contributions to the debate, that there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not like the law as it is. But we are talking about the rule of law, which is indivisible, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said.
One very important question raised by the whole matter is the question "What is lawful picketing?" The House cannot burke this question. When the question was raised this afternoon "Why cannot you stop the bus and remonstrate with the people on it?"—
Mr. John Mendelson: I did not say "remonstrate".
Mr. Hooson: I substitute "persuade" for "remonstrate". I take the view that if the people on the bus do not want to be obstructed on their way to the factory, they have every right not to be obstructed. If one of them is willing to be persuaded, the bus can be stopped. It is exactly the same with an individual walking to the factory. The pickets have no right to obstruct his passage unless he is prepared to listen to persuasion. He is a free man every bit as much as each of the pickets is.
Mr. John Mendelson: What I referred to was the actual experiences on the day my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited the Grunwick site, when the police allowed pickets lawfuly to enter the bus and talk to the people going to work. I say that that should be done every day.
Mr. Hooson: If the bus is stopped, and if a police officer asks "Is anyone on the bus willing to listen to a representative of the pickets?" and one of them says "Yes", I think that the pickets
616
have the right. Otherwise, I do not think that they have the right.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were attempts during the passage of the 1974 Act to make amendments that would have given the power to stop a bus, but those amendments were rejected by the Government. My recollection is that there was an intention to strengthen the right of picketing, which was rejected by the House.
There is the question of numbers. In narrow streets in a small area, the very numbers present and picketing are often an intimidation in themselves. For example, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said today that the only danger of an accident when he was outside the factory was from the bus being driven dangerously. If a lot of people are determined that the bus will not get to its destination unless they have a chance of speaking to the workers on it, and are obstructing the passage of the bus, what can one expect but that danger will be caused? The House should consider this matter further. We should not have any illusions about what has been happening. There has been a considerable degree of illegal picketing at Grunwick, and there has been gross provocation by Grunwick.
There was an article of considerable insight in The Times today about the irreconcilable views of the entrepreneur and of entrepreneurial workers, in this case immigrant workers, who face the prospect of no job or a job in conditions which they would not choose. The entrepreneurial manager cannot continue in business unless he is successful, successfully competing here with firms such as Kodak. Trade unions are at their best and strongest in large, firmly-established enterprises.
An hon. Member who spoke earlier referred to a very large, well-established firm in his constituency which was a subsidiary company, and no doubt it has no problems of trade union recognition. We must recognise that there are two irreconcilable elements here, and it is important that a court of inquiry should be set up. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that there was no conflict on fact, but we have heard nothing today but conflict about fact. The chairman of the tribunal is one of the

617
most enlightened lawyers in the country, and if the tribunal does nothing else at least it will find out the facts of the case. That would be much more helpful than listening to the competing rhetoric of one side of the House or the other.
I do not think that this debate can usefully add much now that there is to be a court of inquiry. I said yesterday that everything justified an inquiry and I am glad that the Government have decided to set one up. I hope that the Post Office workers will consider withdrawing their action and that there will not be mass picketing outside the factory. That would greatly help the situation. Some elements are obviously determined to exacerbate the position, but it cannot be in the interests of the country, the unions or small employers for the situation to get out of hand. I agree with the Attorney-General that he must be very careful when he uses the law in such circumstances. But the court of inquiry has now been set up, and if, after a reasonable time in which everyone can consider the situation, there is still law-breaking, that will be the time to intervene with legal action and with no equivocation whatever on the part of the Government.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Freedom is not a simple question of the absence of a legal bar; it is the right and power to be able to choose when there is no legal bar. It has always been possible for middle-class people—those with the wealth—in the absence of legal restraint to choose, on the basis of their own evaluation, what is the best possible course of action. But for working people that choice has often been frustrated because they have had no physical power to make a choice.
The reason why trade unions put such stress on solidarity and seek to unite to obtain that power is that over the years they have seen that individually they are weak and that they gain strength only when they combine. For Opposition Members to disparage that principle as undesirable or illegal is palpable nonsense. Without that power the great mass of people would not enjoy their present standard of living and would not have the freedoms of choice that they now have. Those have been won over the
618
years by the solidarity of working people through the trade union movement. In a classic situation such as this, where people who want to be members of a trade union are being denied that right by their employer, there can be no reason to criticise those who support the labour movement in this country for saying that we must also support the labour movement in this strike.
If Mr. Ward were to win, the trade union movement would have failed the many people in that factory who want to be members of a trade union. I reiterate what has been missed so often by Opposition Members. This dispute is not about a closed shop at Grunwick. It is not about taking away the right of those who do not want to be members of a trade union. It is to give to the people who want to be members of a trade union the right to do so, even if they are in a minority in that factory. The 1974 Act set up machinery whereby issues such as that could be decided by an independent arbiter, namely ACAS. ACAS ruled on the matter, and when it did so the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) issued a statement on 30th March—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to get out of order and to deal with a matter that is sub judice, as I explained at the beginning of the debate.
Mr. Lyon: I was not proposing to talk about the merits of the ACAS decision, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to indicate that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft took a particular view—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I read the House a statement earlier saying that any comments that had been made about the ACAS issue that is before the courts, either before or after the writ had been issued, would be ruled out of order.
Mr. Lyon: I shall not delay the House unnecessarily. I have made my point.
We had a situation where the strikers had been on strike for 10 months. Earlier today the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) talked about the unacceptable face of trade unionism. The unacceptable face of trade unionism that he wants to convey through the mass media is of large and powerful trade unions holding a poor, small business man to ransom.

619
But in the 10 months before mass picketing began a small number of Asian women had been standing outside the factory gates day in and day out. They had been neglected by the House, neglected by the Opposition and neglected by everybody in the country. They had been completely neglected by Mr. Ward. During that long and arduous vigil Mr. Ward came out of the factory to speak to one of the leaders, Mrs. Jayaben Desai, a little old Asian woman, and told her "You cannot win, Mrs. Desai."
I say to Mr. Ward that he cannot win. He is denying a fundamental right enshrined in the European convention which Lord Hailsham wants to incorporate in the law as a basic freedom. That is the right of Mrs. Desai to belong to APEX if she wants. It is for that right that we are fighting, and for that right that people are going on the streets. They did not go on the streets until Mr. Ward had so obstructed any inquiry for so long that there seemed no other way of getting that freedom for these people. That freedom is as important as the freedom of people inside the factory not to belong to a trade union. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) suggests that he is unique in having been inside the factory, but when I was on the picket line he invited me to go inside the factory. I think that I am unique in having been on both sides of the picket line on the same day. After being on the picket line I talked to police on the buses after they had done their stint. At the invitation of the hon. Member I went into the factory.
I give the hon. Gentleman credit for inviting me in. I was most interested in the situation that I found. When the door was opened, Mr. Ward was on the telephone. However, the hon. Gentleman invited me in without let or hindrance. He took me to the managing director's room without let or hindrance. He sat me down without let or hindrance and told me of the management's case. When I indicated that I had not come to talk to him but to those inside the factory, he took me into the factory without let or hindrance, without asking permission. We talked to the people in the factory wherever I wanted to go and Mr. Ward was never consulted.
Mr. Gorst: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. Mr. Ward was well aware that the hon. Gen-
620
tleman was coming on to the premises. The hon. Gentleman was not keen to meet him. As he said, he sloped in by a side door unnoticed. He sloped out without even a word of departure.
Mr. Lyon: If I sloped in unnoticed, it was only because I had asked a Pressman who had gone in to convey my expression of intent to the hon. Gentleman. I received a message that the hon. Gentleman agreed. I went in by a door that was locked. It was opened by one of those inside. I was met immediately from behind the door by the hon. Gentleman. I sloped off at the end only because the hon. Gentleman was immersed in a Press conference in which he was giving the company's view of what should be done in future. He seemed to be so busily immersed that I could not talk to him, although I waited a few moments to allow him to talk to me.
The hon. Gentleman says that the 260 workers inside the factory would walk out if the people who have gone on strike were to come back into the factory. I am bound to tell the House—I say so because the hon. Gentleman would expect me to convey an honest impression of what I found inside the factory—that it is the fact that a great many of them would take that view. I do not say that all of them would do so, but a great many of those inside the factory are not anxious to be members of a trade union and are now almost bitterly hostile to the prospect of joining APEX.
If it should happen that APEX is given recognition so that it is the recognised union for those who want to belong to a trade union, there will be a long period in which Mr. Grantham and his officers will have patiently to work to minimise the bitterness that has been built up inside the factory by those who have had to walk through the picket line. I accept that, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been sufficiently sensitive to the reasons for that attitude existing.
I cannot think of any employer in my constituency, or any employer that I have met anywhere else in the country, who would have acted as obdurately as Mr. Ward. I do not think that I can be accused of racialism if I say that I believe that that has something to do with his newness in our society. Equally, many of

621
those inside the factory have no understanding of an industrial situation. Many of them are new to our society. Many of them came from East Africa, where they were not engaged in industry but in commerce. Many of them were engaged in shorthand or typing, occupations that did not involve them in industrial processes. They do not have the background of working people in this country. They do not understand the need for and the availablility of trade union organisations.
We have a situation that is exactly the position that obtained in this country before the onset of trade unionism in the middle of the nineteenth century. We have gone back 100 years, because in relation both to the management and to the work people there is not the appreciation of what has been won for workers in this country in 100 years. The obduracy and the difficulty that have occasioned the settlement of the dispute arise because the work people as well as the management do not see the necessity for trade unions. However, it is beyond any doubt that they were exploited.
The hon. Gentleman and others have taken exception to my suggestion that employees were originally working for a 40-hour week for £25. When I was in the factory I asked about wages. It is fair to say that there were variations between different work people. Some were earning £30 for a 35 hour week when the strike began. It is clear that whatever they were earning when it began, they have had a 30 per cent. increase in less than a year in the course of stage 2, which has been massively breached. The purpose of the increase is obvious, it is to try to buy the loyalty of the workers on whom the hon. Gentleman now relies.
It is not right to say that Mr. Ward was not exploiting the workers before the strike began. I think that he is still exploiting them, but not to the same degree as 12 months ago. That is why, when Mr. Ward approached Mrs. Desai and said "You can't win", she turned to him and replied "I have already won." In that sense she has. The reason why we need a trade union in the factory is that its presence will ensure that things never slip back again. That is why it is essential that the workers should have a union.
622
There has been argument about the way in which trade unions have tried to assert their rights when the law was denied to them by the obduracy of the managing director. One way in which they have tried to do so is by picketing, on which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has commented. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks for a clearer definition. He said, quite rightly, that when that proposal came before the House in 1974 the Government rejected it. In fact, the Government rejected it—I was in the middle of the argument—on the representations of the police. The Department of Employment wanted to have a closer definition of picketing and to give a clearer right to picket.
I wanted to introduce a provision which in modern life would bring the old law of picketing up to date. The law of picketing has always allowed a picket to approach someone peacefully to persuade him. It has always been the right of the individual to refuse to listen to representations. However, in modern times, with the introduction of motor vehicles, it is difficult to make representations if motor vehicles proceed without stopping. It is nugatory to say that the right extends only to putting people on notice, to say "Please stop and listen to our representations". There should be the possibility of allowing the vehicle to stop so that the representations can be heard. That is what I wanted to bring into our law.
As a trade-off for that I wanted the number of pickets to be limited to about six. That would be a sufficient number to have a peaceful picket without mass picketing. With the present state of the law, there is nothing wrong with mass picketing. It does not matter how many are picketing as long as they do not intimidate.
Mr. Percy Grieve Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) rose—
Mr. Lyon: No, I shall not give way. When we were considering a mediator there were 500 people outside the Grunwick gate every day and there was no violence. That could not be described as illegal picketing, even though many people were gathered there. They were acting peacefully in standing behind the police barriers. In no way did they seek to intimidate. I agree that a large number

623
of people can intimidate, but they do not necessarily intimidate.
The issue that has caused most concern throughout the debate is the Post Office ban. In my view, there is nothing in Section 58 that makes illegal the stopping of the mail in a trade dispute. There is no lawful authority for the proposition that that is the case because it has never been considered.
When the Attorney-General is criticised for not acting as if there has been a breach of the law, I must point out that in 1973 there was a similar discriminatory ban against mail going to France for reasons that Post Office workers thought to be right and there was no intervention by the then Conservative Attorney-General. There was no call by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for the implementation of the law. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was noticeable by his silence on that occasion. That ban is not directly comparable with the present situation, which is arguably a trade dispute, but it is comparable with the Gouriet situation, to which I shall not refer because that is also sub judice.
If it is true that Section 58 is as clear as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East thinks it is—that a postman is not allowed to stop the mail —it means that postmen have no right to strike. Who in this House believes that in 1953 we took away the right of postmen to strike? There is no legal textbook in the Library to which the right hon. Gentleman can go and find therein stated that postmen are denied the right to strike.
It is interesting that in the Gourier case the Master of the Rolls pointed out that in 1971 the Conservative Government took away the denial of the right of gas and electricity workers to strike in pursuance of a trade dispute and said that it was not a criminal offence, and he noted that we had not done the same for Post Office workers. The reason was that none of us expected such a ban to be applied in a trade dispute. No one thought that Section 58 applied to a trade dispute. No one argued it before Mr. Gourier went to the court in the first of his actions in relation to the ban on Grunwick post.
I do not suggest that my view of the law will be adopted by the present
624
judiciary. Probably not. But, in the present state of the law, it has not been decided, and no one can claim that the Cricklewood postmen are carrying out an illegal act until the court so decides. Therefore, we should refrain from any suggestion that they are doing so until the matter has been decided.
In the final analysis there is one rule of English law that is absolutely fundamental—that a man cannot be made to work against his will. If a man wishes to withdraw his labour, he is entitled to do so. Nobody can make him go back to work. There can be financial penalties, but no one can make him go back to work. Therefore, if the Cricklewood strikers, in defiance of Tom Jackson or anybody else, decide not to handle the mail, in my view they have a legal as well as a moral right to take that action.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the short time remaining before the Secretary of State addresses the House again, I shall avoid making any comment on the industrial aspects of the Grunwick dispute. I welcome the inquiry set up by the Secretary of State. I believe that that inquiry and this debate may help to defuse the situation.
Equally, I shall not attempt to deai with any of the allegations that have been made against individual members of the police service, save only that in general I reject totally the suggestion of police either brutally or partiality in this matter. I very much regret that some Members of the House have seen fit to give room to those charges.
I want to concentrate on three points: first, the approach to law; secondly, the duties and morale of the police in this matter; and, thirdly, the responsibilities of the House and the Government to the police.
On the rule of law, I remind the House that the police, more than any other group, regard the law as a seamless garment. They cannot enforce the law in one place and not in another, against some people all the time and against others only some of the time. Whatever the Attorney-General may say, for the police the law is indivisible. If it is broken in one place, be it Cricklewood, Chapter Street or Clay Cross, it starts to come apart everywhere else.

625
At the moment the law is being broken in four specific ways. First, there is interference with the mail. I hope that the appeal made by the Attorney-General will be successful. I say no more about that. The second breach of law concerns assaults on the police. More than 100 officers have been injured. That is far too many. Any officer injured is one too many. The answer to the charge of brutality is that 100 police officers have been injured and not one has drawn his truncheon.
The third breach of law is the attempt to subvert and disaffect individual police officers. Section 53 of the Police Act 1964 provides that:
"Any person who causes, or attempts to cause, or does any act calculated to cause, disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or induces or attempts to induce, or does any act calculated to induce, any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit breaches of discipline, shall be guilty of an offence".
I have no time to go into the details, but there have been deliberate breaches of that law by those who have been on the picket lines and on the demonstrations outside the Grunwick plant. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking his intervention in the matter.
The fourth clear breach of law is the most common—namely, the obstruction and attempted intimidation of individual citizens not only on their way to their place of work but in their private homes.
There is no question of the police taking sides in this matter. This morning the Police Federation met. I hope that it is right for me to read to the House a short statement made by the Police Federation on this matter:
"The police are not concerned with the issues giving rise to this dispute. It is their simple duty to uphold the law. The police must remember at all times that both sides have rights under the law. Just as free citizens have a right to go on strike and to picket in a peaceful manner, so have other free citizens the right not to strike, to refuse to be persuaded and an inalienable right to go to work.
Along with citizens' rights go citizens responsibilities. A citizen who takes adavantage of the right to picket or to take part in a demonstration, has a responsibility to ensure that his conduct does not deprive other citizens of their rights. He must obey the law. The tame applies to organisations which take part
626
in disputes and demonstrations. They have a special responsibility not to create situations in which maintenance of the rule of law becomes impossible".
The Police Federation concludes, and I ask the House to note this:
"Amongst the crowds outside Grunwick on most days there have been elements who have no respect for law, nor any obvious connection with the dispute. Such people have a vested interest in violence and confrontation with the police. They cannot be controlled by officials of the trade unions concerned in the dispute. They can and must be controlled by the police."
I endorse every word of that statement, and I hope that it will have the support of both sides of the House.
On this matter of the law. there is no room for neutrality. No Minister or Member of Parliament should pose as a referee between the police and the pickets. That is not the issue. The choice is between the rule of law and the rule of the mob. On that matter there can be no room for partiality or neutrality. That is an issue that we must determine.
I do not wish to take the time of the Secretary of State. I have limited myself to eight minutes. However, I want to make two other points. The morale of the police is now at a low ebb. There has been a year of difficulty over pay, worsening conditions and rising crime and violence. I very much regret that there have been one or two incidents in the eastern part of the city where a number of police officers, expressing their concern about what has been going on, have seen fit, both yesterday and today, to begin to work to the book.
The House will recognise that, at a time when the police service, particularly in the Metropolitan area, is stretched as seldom before, when members are getting knocked about and their wives are deeply concerned, it cannot be wise or sensible for the Home Office to have chosen this moment to cut out overtime in many divisions, and it cannot be right to be sending out documentation illustrating how to make it easier to complain against the police. I believe that the Government should be handling the police with a great deal more sensitivity.
I conclude with this appeal to the Home Secretary and, through him, to the Prime Minister. I believe that the Government have been slow to give the police the support that they deserve. They have given it, but they have given it in a slow

627
and uncertain manner. I would not ask the Prime Minister to back the police uncritically, but I ask him to do so unmistakably. I think he must tell the public and this House publicly what in private he knows to be true, namely, first, that those who have been responsible for most of the violence at Grunwick are not the trade unionists. They are the anarchists and the revolutionary Socialists. Those people are using every device, including the deliberate injection of racial hatred and deliberate attempts to suborn the police in order to achieve their goal, which is the breakdown of law and order. That requires to be said.
Secondly, it needs to be said and understood that those who encourage picketing on a scale which of itself involves not only intimidation but threats to public order are aiding and abetting the anarchists. This goes for trade union leaders who call for armies of pickets and it goes for hon. Members of this House who deliberately make the work of the police more difficult.
Finally, it needs to be said by the Prime Minister that, when violence is used to break the law of the land, the police are in duty bound to use counter-force to contain it. The enforcement of the law means exactly that—the use by the police of minimum force but, in all circumstances, of enough force to ensure that the law-breaker is arrested and is brought before the courts to face charges.
No one knows better than the Prime Minister—and, indeed, the Home Secretary—that police morale has been badly battered by a year of frustration over their pay dispute It would be a catastrophe if the police were now to be overwhelmed or if they were to falter for lack of support.
I ask the House—and I do so, Mr. Speaker, with confidence—to stand up and be counted on the side of the police. The country expects no less of us, and so do the police themselves.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Secretary of State is willing to give three minutes of his time to his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher).
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: As a sponsored member of APEX, I have folowed this dispute for the last 45 weeks.
628
I raised the matter in the House in an Adjournment debate on 20th December last year. It created little interest here or in the country, but a great deal of interest in the trade union movement, because we are fighting for the principle that no one should get the sack for joining a trade union, and that is the principle which Yorkshire miners, London dockers and others are interested in maintaining.
It was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that people were not sacked from this establishment for joining a trade union. Let me remind him that in 1973 five members who joined the Transport and General Workers' Union were sacked, and that there was an industrial dispute which lasted some weeks before it petered out. That was the first occasion, before APEX was interested. I believe there was another occasion in 1971 when people were sacked for joining a trade union.
It was said that we are telling lies and uttering claptrap. What we are saying cannot be denied, because we have the wage slips in the head office of APEX, showing that people were paid £25 per week for a 35-hour week and £28 for a 40-hour week. No one is telling lies. We know, too, that no one was entitled to take a holiday until the wintertime. We know that people had to work compulsory overtime without being given any notice. As a consequence of this, these people came out on strike.
We ought to address ourselves to this question: will the Grunwick management accept and implement the finding of a court of inquiry? I do not think that it will. If it gave a categoric pledge that it would, I do not believe that it would carry it out.
In a debate in the House on 4th November there was a reference to a letter to the Union of Post Office Workers in which the company said that it would co-operate with ACAS and carry out its findings. What happened? Two weeks went by and ACAS asked "Will you co-operate?" The company said "We are considering the matter". Finally, ACAS had to send a special messenger round to get a reply, and the reply was "We are taking the matter to the High Court". This was procrastination designed to exhaust the strikers. These are the tactics adopted by the management.

629
During the debate we have heard two voices of the Conservative Party. We have heard the voice of the extremists. We have also heard the voice of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who said, in a public statement issued on 30th March:
"The Report on the Grunwick Dispute by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has now been published. The ACAS Council, including both employers and trade unionists, have commended that the management should recognise APEX for collective bargaining purposes. I hope that the Report will be accepted, that picketing and blacking will end, and that there will be a full restoration of normal working."
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a matter that is sub judice? In any case, I must warn him that he is a minute over time.
Mr. Fletcher: That was the authentic voice of the Conservative Party.
7.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): In the debate there have been many references to the rule of law. I put it to the House that the rule of law is to be respected as much when it depends upon consent as when it is backed by criminal sanctions, and that for people to refuse to co-operate with bodies established under the law, going about their business under the law, is in a very real sense to show a contempt for the law.
That is why I very much regret that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has chosen the occasion of this debate to launch an attack upon the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I noted the hon. Gentleman's words very carefully. He told the House that ACAS has tried to distort facts and mislead—
Mr. Gorst: It was APEX, not ACAS.
Mr. Booth: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Very well, I withdraw the reference to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, and will merely say, in relation to my point about respect for the law, that ACAS is a body set up by this House under the Employment Protection Act. It is a body that has been run by a council comprising members of the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and independent people.
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this matter is sub judice.
Mr. Speaker: What is sub judice, as I outlined earlier, is the case that is before the courts.
Mr. Booth: I am talking about the role of ACAS in this dispute, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that I shall not enter into any part of the duties of ACAS which are to be considered by the High Court. That will be made perfectly clear, if the House will bear with me for a moment. ACAS is a body that was set up by the House under the Employment Protection Act, and APEX chose to seek the assistance of that body 10 months ago. It sought assistance in order to resolve the dispute at Grunwick by conciliation.
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the manner in which ACAS carried out its function that is the subject of the High Court action.
Mr. Booth: I am talking not about the activities of ACAS in respect of recognition, but about its conciliation function, long before the question of recognition was raised.
Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that I said this afternoon that general references to conciliation and arbitration would be in order, provided that they did not touch upon the recommendation of ACAS and the civil action pending in relation thereto.
Mr. Booth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 31st August the company declined the offer by ACAS to assist. It subsequently declined further offers on a number of occasions.
I remind the House that the ban by UPW members at the Cricklewood depot on postal packages for Grunwick, which has been talked about this afternoon, is not the first such ban that has occurred in the course of this dispute. On the previous occasion when such a ban was operating the UPW gave an undertaking to the court in respect of that action. It was given, I understand, as a result of there being an agreement by Grunwick to co-operate with ACAS on the question which is now before the courts. Therefore, ACAS was not only unable to pursue its general duties in respect of conciliation but was unable to embark

631
upon the role that the House laid down for it under the Employment Protection Act in respect of another matter in which an action took place which it is referred to by this House as being in breach of the rule of law.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) asked what action the Post Office will take and what action my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will take in respect of what has happened at the Cricklewood sorting office. I can tell him and the House that I understand from the Post Office that it has decided to take no further action today, so as to allow all concerned to consider the implications of the announcement of the setting up of the court of inquiry. I know from the tone and the spirit in which he spoke that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will respect that.
With regard to the wider issues of the action of certain members of the Post Office union, the right of postmen to take normal industrial action was first put in doubt by the recent Gouriet case. The question had not been raised before. Neither we nor any previous Administration had any doubts on that score. There was no suggestion in 1971 that the three-week strike of Post Office workers was then illegal.
We propose to remove that uncertainty. I very much hope that no one in this
632
House will wish to argue that postmen should be placed in a worse position with regard to normal industrial action than nearly all other workers in this country. But until that is the position in law it in no way detracts from what I originally said about respect for the law.
Much has been made of the tribunal decision concerning 59 dismissed strikers in the Grunwick dispute. The point at issue in that tribunal decision was whether or not a person who had taken part in the dispute had not been dismissed. That was the issue before the tribunal—
It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, Mr SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) and the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

GRENADA (GIFT OF A PRESIDING OFFICER'S CHAIR)
Ordered,
That Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Dan Jones have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a Presiding Officer's Chair to the Houses of Parliament of Grenada.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
7.35 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that we are discussing at the same time the second motion:
"That the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved "?
Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that that will be convenient.
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. At present I believe it is right that direct rule should continue, and I am therefore seeking the approval of the House today to an order extending the statutory basis for direct rule for a further year from 16th July.
Although the security situation has improved in recent months, the emergency in Northern Ireland continues. Accordingly, I seek the renewal of the various emergency provisions under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 for a further six months from 24th July.
The Government are directly responsible to this House for governing Northern Ireland, and it is therefore to Parliament that we must account for our actions there. Direct rule is not the Government's preferred form of government for Northern Ireland but we shall continue to administer it wholeheartedly, positively and caringly for so long as circumstances require. Although direct rule is providing stability, it is no substitute for a final constitutional settlement. I have never been of the opinion that a "solution" to Northern Ireland's problems will be found overnight, but I believe that the last year has been one of steady progress in Northern Ireland.
634
Defeating terrorism, searching for a durable and acceptable constitutional solution and improving the economy of the Province are the three aims of Government policy, each of which has a degree of dependence upon the others. Continuing violence hampers economic progress. It inhibits potential investors. Resources have to be diverted to deal with terrorism, and eradicating terrorism depends not only on the continuing success of the security forces but also on the creation of agreed political institutions in which the community as a whole has confidence. And, in turn, political stability will be greatly helped by eco-mic prosperity.
Accordingly, in recent weeks I have taken steps to intensify security operations and to encourage Northern Ireland's political leaders to consider whether constitutional progress can be made and I have taken measures to stimulate the economy. I must make clear that our security policy rests upon the recommendation of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order which my predecessor outlined to the House almost exactly a year ago today. The central themes of the Committee's recommendations were the importance of developing the effectiveness and acceptance of the police and tackling criminal violence through the basic methods of the law—detection of criminals and their prosecution before the courts. This policy is fair and impartial. No one is imprisoned in Northern Ireland for political beliefs. Conviction depends upon proving the case against the accused by the submission of evidence open to cross-examination in open court.
There have been significant developments in the organisation, operation and acceptance of the police during the last year, and improved arrangements have been made for police and Army co-operation. The Army's task in Ulster is to act as the essential buttress of the law and order policy and it will continue to carry out that task. It supports the police in the sense that its activties are devoted to the same goal—the detection and suppression of crime and the restoration of the rule of law.
The progress made during the last year is reflected in the figures. Of course, figures must be used with care, as all of us who are aware of the sensitivity of

635
these matters know, but two clear points stand out. First, the charging and conviction rate is up. Secondly, terrorist violence is down.
During the whole of 1976, 963 persons were convicted for scheduled offences on indictment, and 214 of them received sentences of 10 years or more. Up to 20th May this year, 436 persons had been convicted in this way, 141 receiving sentences of 10 years or more. Comparing the past six months with the corresponding period last year, charges laid for serious terrorist offences have risen from 581 to 682, so the trend is showing an increased charging and conviction rate.
Over the same period, shooting incidents are down from nearly 900 to just over 650 and bomb explosions are down from almost 400 to 228. The weight of explosives used by terrorists has gone down from nine tons to two tons, and deaths have gone down from 174 in the first six months of 1976 to 79 in the first six months of this year. Injuries, too, have been cut by half. This represents a noticeable decline in terrorist violence.
However, as the House will recognise, incidents of brutality continue to occur, especially attacks on members of the security forces. They are now bearing the brunt of any attacks, as last night's murder of two young soldiers shows. Nevertheless, the overall trend of violence is unquestionably downwards. This is not to say that I am or that the security forces or the Government are in any way satisfied with the position. But these trends give us confidence that our general strategy is the right one.
One also notices that the nature of the violence has changed. Street violence and widespread rioting is no longer the problem. Politically-motivated violence enjoying a measure of community support has been much reduced. Therefore, those responsible have no realistic political cause and no political or democratic backing. We now have to deal with a relatively small number of criminals, some of them hardened by years of crime and violence who intimidate their friends and neighbours. But the gap is widening between these criminals and the community in whose interests they claim to act. They really are being isolated. But they are deeply embedded in the social structure as a consequence of the past
636
years of violence, and our task of dealing with them—within the law, based on evidence—makes this aspect of our task a little more difficult.
I do not believe that blanket measures will achieve this. The reintroduction of detention or indiscriminate search-and-destroy operations would produce few practical dividends to offset the alienation of the many innocent people who would experience the inevitable arbitrary and unfair consequences of such policies. By intensification of the security effort, therefore, I mean a study of the effectiveness of our different methods and continued and continuing intensification of those methods which are proving effective.
Let me explain this as it affects the police. First, the Criminal Investigation Department has been reorganised by the Chief Constable. It is now a cohesive and highly effective crime-fighting unit. It is supported by improved technical and forensic science services. The three regional crime squads are now well established. They work closely with the Headquarters Crime Squad to concentrate on serious terrorist crime and focus on leading members of terrorist organisations.
The criminal intelligence units have been developed into a complete collation system with a network of local offices and they are at the core of the activities of the CID and the crime squads. The nucleus of a Fraud Squad has been established, and arrangements are in hand to form a special squad for serious crimes. In total, the number of detectives and other experts involved in all these activities has been increased by 150. These developments enable the police to get information and to put it swiftly into the hands of those who can use it effectively against the leading criminals.
Second, the Special Patrol Group has recently been reviewed by the Chief Constable so that its efforts can be more effectively directed towards the detection of bombers, travelling gunmen and sectarian murderers. It is essential that the RUC has a built-in flexibility in the use of the resources to enable it to meet and in many cases to pre-empt shifts in terrorist tactics. The Special Patrol Group, which provides assistance and support in areas where it is most needed, now numbers more than 300 men.

637
Similarly, the Chief Constable is forming 10 divisional mobile support units; two are operational and eight others are in training. These units will each have their own vehicles, and they will provide divisional commanders with a mobile squad of experienced officers to combat terrorist activity.
The Chief Constable also envisages a wider, more interesting operational rôle for the RUC Reserve, and members of the reserve will form part of these mobile support units. The reserve already performs a most valuable function in supporting the regular force and providing an obvious police presence on guard duty or on patrol. Henceforth they will also be more directly involved in operations.
Thirdly, the capacity of the security forces for surveillance operations is being increased. Hon. Members will appreciate that terrorist violence is essentially clandestine. Attacks are conceived, planned and, until the critical moment, carried out in the maximum secrecy. Therefore, the forces of law and order must have a corresponding capacity for the patient collection of intelligence. More has been done in this field of activity than is generally realised, although for security reasons it would not be right for me to give precise details.
These SAS-type activities are now being stepped up. Additional troops specifically earmarked for duties in this field have recently arrived in Northern Ireland. More use is to be made, for specialist operations, of the military resources already in the Province, and greater emphasis will be placed on training for operations of this type. Particular attention will be given to integration and co-ordination and to close working with the police. The final result will be more information geared to the arrest of dangerous terrorist leaders.
Against that background, the police and Army must be properly manned and supported for their tasks. The strength of the RUC continues to increase, and now stands at 5,423 compared with 5,055 12 months ago. In the first six months of this year there were 1,360 applications to join the force, and already 278 recruits have been accepted. The aim is to improve on last year's record figure of 581 recruits.
Mr. Ian GowCan the right hon. Gentleman give the corresponding figures for the RUC Reserve?
Mr. Mason: I shall be coming to that shortly.
As to the future, I announced on 8th June that we shall have no inhibitions about recruiting beyond the present establishment of 6,500 officers, should this be necessary. Similarly, the strength of the full-time RUC Reserve now stands at 943, compared with 729 on 30th June 1976. As for building and equipment, in the current financial year we are spending almost £4 million on the police building programme. The size of the force vehicle fleet has been raised to more than 1,200 vehicles. New Land Rovers fitted with improved protective devices and new weapons are being acquired.
By way of illustration of the procedures, the Ml carbine was the weapon selected by the Chief Constable as the most appropriate for police use in Northern Ireland; its acquisition was approved by the police authority, and the necessary resources were made available. As the House will recognise, there may from time to time be supply difficulties, because the needs of the police are not immune from the hazards of the commercial world, but these problems are being tackled and overcome; the new vehicles and the new weapons are coming into service.
We must remember, too, that policing in a civilised society is not simply a matter of numbers and equipment. It is founded on the principle that the police and the public are one. The liberties of the community rest on the law and its enforcement, and the effectiveness of the police depends in large measure on their reputation in the eyes of the community. The conduct of the RUC during the events in May has drawn praise from all sides. I cannot speak too highly of it. Its actions represented the clearest possible demonstration of the ability and the will of the RUC to enforce the law effectively and impartially.
I believe it is right to remind the House that one of the main terrorist organisations—namely, the Provisional IRA—is waging war not only with bombs and bullets but with propaganda. One facet of this is a campaign of complaints against the RUC, alleging ill treatment

639
of suspects. I would never condone ill treatment by the police, and I know that this is the Chief Constable's position too. The RUC must act within the law; it is not above it. But I have no doubt that behind many of the claim about police brutality is a concerted campaign to discredit the police and the operation of the rule of law. It is because the RUC is so successful and effective with its detecting, arresting and charging that we have had this campaign.
I should like now to say something about the significant part that the Ulster Defence Regiment has to play in defeating terrorism. If the members of the regiment are to discharge adequately their responsibilities to provide first-line support, it is clear that they must have units available for action at all times. The Government have therefore embarked on a programme to develop the UDR's full-time strength. All full-time members are now liable for operational service and full-time operational platoons are being progressively developed. Our aim is that there should be at least one for each of the 11 battalions. Five are already in operation and a sixth is in the course of formation.
That fulfils the commitment made by my predecessor on 2nd July last year to increase the size of the permanent cadre of the UDR. As hon. Members will recall, I announced on 17th December last that, as a first step, 200 additional full-time members were to be recruited specifically for operational duties. Recruitment is proceeding satisfactorily and we have now authorised recruitment of a further 700, up to a total of 2,500 professionals.
I know from his previous interest that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will be glad to have this confirmed. The official Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have all made representations on this score. We have taken on board the various aspects of security, made in the representations.
We are always alert to deal with gaps in the law and to ensure that it has teeth. We shall soon be debating the Second Reading of the Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Bill, the main provision of which is to double the maximum penalty for membership of a proscribed organisation to 10 years' imprisonment. I am also
640
bringing forward an Order in Council dealing with three other proposals for improving the law in relation to conspiracy, explosives and hoax bombs. Further details will be given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State in the later debate.
Security policy is more than laws and measures. There is no praise too high for the members of the security forces who every day patiently and courageously face the vicious violence of the terrorist. I know that the GOC and the Chief Constable count themselves fortunate in the men and women under their command, and we owe a particular debt to the reservists. I also pay tribute to those services such as the Prison Service, which carry a particular burden today.
I believe that this policy of selective and intensified effort points the way ahead for the future. It is, of course, necessary to maintain the basic structure of emergency powers. I therefore seek the approval of the House for the continuance of the measures within the emergency provisions legislation, including the power to detain, although, as I have made clear before, I would have recourse to this only as a last resort.
I turn now to the operation of direct rule and to the improvements we are seeking to make in the way it operates. Hon. Members will recall that during the debate on the renewal of direct rule of 2nd July last year it was proposed to remove the limit on the number of sittings that the Northern Ireland Committee could hold in any one parliamentary Session. This was done, and two further sittings are planned before the Summer Recess. We also undertook to facilitate discussion in the Committee of proposals for draft Orders in Council when there was a general wish to do so among hon. Members. We have done this also.
The result has been a significant increase in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of our proposals for what is, in effect, primary legislation for Northern Ireland. And this scrutiny has been possible at a stage when we could modify our proposals before laying them before the House as draft orders.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Secretary of State passes from that point, perhaps he would wish to place on the record that this opportunity has proved not to be theoretical.

641
As a result of the procedures, very substantial alterations have been made to the draft orders before they have been presented to the House. I thought that the Secretary of State would wish to have that put on the record at this stage.
Mr. Mason: I watch these orders very carefully, but my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary dealt with these matters a great deal. We have made substantial progress on the method we have adopted of laying a draft order before hon. Members for consultation before the orders are laid before the House. This has been very helpful to hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
My predecessor also announced in last July's debate that the Government would, in appropriate circumstances, give sympathetic consideration to extending the normal one and a half hours' debate which draft Orders in Council receive on the Floor of the House. The House will be aware that there have indeed been such extended debates on a number of occasions during the present Session— indeed, a total of 20 hours was spent on the debates on five orders, an average of four hours each.
We undertook, too, last year to legislate for Northern Ireland wherever possible by extending the application of Westminster Bills to the Province. This is now a firm policy and we shall continue it wherever this is feasible.
Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of what the Secretary of State has said, would he say that he will bring in immediately the Family Law Reform and Divorce Bill, as advised by the Royal Commission?
Mr. Mason: The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has presented a report to me on law reform and homosexuality. I shall give consideration fairly soon to publication of the report and to making a statement alongside publication.
If I may now turn to political and constitutional matters, I should like to emphasise that there should be no misunderstanding about the Government's objective in Northern Ireland. This remains the restoration of a devolved legislative Government. The essential criterion for the successful establishment
642
of such a Government is that it should be widely acceptable in the Province— that is, acceptable to both parts of the community.
As hon. Members will know, at the end of last month I held separate meetings with representatives of the Official Unionist Party, Social Democrat and Labour Party, Alliance Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to discuss both security and constitutional matters. At these meetings I explained to the parties that a fully devolved legislative Government in Northern Ireland remained the goal of the Government, but that we had seen no indication that the parties were yet ready to reach agreement on the form this should take. Some parties, however, showed an interest in continuing the discussion by exploring the desirability of some form of Administration short of full devolution, and this exploration is continuing.
I told all the political parties I met that I was prepared to consider an interim arrangement which would involve the devolution of real power and responsibility, provided that it commanded widespread support from both parts of the community. I can also report the position on another constitutional subject. Hon Members will recall that on 23rd March last my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a firm commitment that we would seek to have the issue of Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster referred to a Speaker's Conference.
Agreement in principle has been reached with the party leaders, and the details will now have to be settled through the usual channels. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining stages will have been completed in time for you to be able to begin your work before the House rises for the recess.
Before leaving constitutional issues, I should like to say again that the Government's policy is that, as provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the wish of the majority of its people. Against this background, I believe that the problems are most likely to be solved by our own efforts. There is, therefore, no question of the Government relinquishing their responsibilities in Northern

643
Ireland or of declaring any intention of doing so.
There will shortly be a new Government in Dublin led by Mr. Lynch. I have always kept closely in touch with Irish Ministers because of our range of common interests and I look forward to continuing good relations with Mr. Lynch and his Administration. One vital element in these relations is the recognition that we face a common enemy in terrorism. Whatever their alleged aims, terrorists challenge the authority of Governments and menace the welfare of everyone in both our countries. It is in our interests to work together to defeat them. Cross-border co-operation is therefore of vital importance to us both, and I look forward to developing further within the framework of our policy for Northern Ireland the good progress made over the years.
I now turn to the economy. The Province has suffered from high unemployment and a dependence upon declining industries. I hope that the actions of myself and my colleagues illustrate our determination to try to alleviate short-term difficulties, to try to broaden the industrial base and to regenerate existing undertakings for the long term.
Economic and social progress is as vital a factor in securing stability in Northern Ireland as are security policy and political progress. By providing people with jobs, better housing and good education, we can instill confidence in the future and steadily erode the influence of extremists and men of violence.
My first concern on being appointed was to meet the trade unions and employers' organisations. I attach great importance to partnership with them and consequently look forward to a positive contribution from a new Economic Council.
I have been anxious to push ahead with the appointment of the council, and no doubt hon. Members will share my impatience. However, they will appreciate that the delay has been due to factors outside the Government's control. The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has just recently finalised its policy on the council and let me have its nominations for appointment. I hope to be in a position
644
to get the council under way within the next few weeks.
The Economic Council will be a body outside the Government whose rôle will be to consider the problems of the economy and industry as a whole. I see it as contributing actively to Government thinking on economic matters, advising on policy and originating ideas and proposals.
I aim to attract new investment in growth industries. We have been conducting an aggressive campaign at home and abroad, especially in the United States, to "sell" at better image of Northern Ireland to potential investors. Present and prospective investors in Northern Ireland can be sure of encouragement and help from the Government in maintaining their competitive position. Writing off the deficit of the Northern Ireland electricity service and freezing the main commercial and industrial tariffs has been important in that respect. We are also reviewing, in the light of the Quigley Report, the scope for improving the already substantial investment incentives in the Province.
Two important measures for combating unemployment in Northern Ireland have been the youth employment subsidy and the temporary employment subsidy. Their extension was recently announced by the Minister of State as part of a new £13 million employment package. In view of its important contribution, the selective employment premium has been retained in Northern Ireland, even though its equivalent was ended in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Also, there are schemes and programmes, such as Enterprise Ulster, tailor-made to meet Northern Ireland's own special needs. We have also been concentrating, perhaps more than Great Britain, on training and apprenticeship schemes. Those being trained are being kept off the unemployment register and are being given skills which help to attract potential investors who need a trained work force.
I am particularly concerned about unemployment among young people. Hon. Members will be aware of the announcement yesterday of the Government's plans for dealing with this problem. I have decided that in Northern Ireland the existing schemes for young people should

645
be significantly expanded and developed into a new co-ordinated programme. The new programme will be called the Youth Opportunities Programme for Northern Ireland and will provide some 6,000 training, experience and employment places in a variety of settings but in all cases in an employment-oriented environment. Young men and women admitted to the programme will be paid a standard wage allowance of £18 per week.
The detail of the new programme will take a little time to work out carefully with a variety of interests. Indeed, if the programme as a whole is to succeed, there must be the maximum possible community involvement. I have therefore decided that a basic precept of the programme will be the seeking out and involvement of those in our community who are concerned about young people's economic needs and who can contribute to meeting these needs.
I said earlier that steady progress had been made in Northern Ireland in recent months. I recognise that there are no easy solutions, but equally I know that sustained, determined efforts to deal with terrorism, to promote understanding among Northern Ireland's political leaders and to stimulate the economy are the way forward. These three strands of the Government's policy have a common theme and purpose. It is to give real hope of a stable future in which the people of Northern Ireland can live in peace and work together for the common good. As we work towards that better future, the Government's responsibility is to provide Northern Ireland with impartial, responsive government. In order to discharge our responsibilities, we require the legislation for which I seek renewal today.
I commend these orders to the House.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: We welcome both these orders as necessary for the security measures that the Secretary of State must take in Northern Ireland and for the renewal of direct rule for one year from 16th July. We also strongly support his efforts to uphold the rule of law for Northern Ireland and we welcome the figures that he gave of arrests and convictions.
I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about a Speaker's Conference
646
on Northern Ireland representation in this House. We look forward to a discussion through the usual channels on the precise terms of reference and membership of that conference. We want to avoid delay so that Mr. Speaker's Conference can begin as soon as possible. We have for many months favoured the inclusion of Northern Ireland representation in the Speaker's Conference, although earlier proposals covered matters affecting the whole of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) drew attention to this matter on 23rd March. Fortunately, the Government had changed their policy since 1st February, when the Leader of the House rejected any amendment to the Scotland and Wales Bill. Last year about this time the Secretary of State's predecessor declared that to talk of extra representation in this House was to fly in the face of history and cultural attitudes.
I hope that that point of view does not continue, because it has been clear for a long time that the Province is under-represented in this House, and the Conservative Party so stated in its election manifesto. We therefore welcome the Prime Minister's statement on 23rd March when he replied to the debate on the motion of confidence. The situation of the Government at that time, with the collapse of the Scotland and Wales Bill, may explain changes in Government policy in this matter, but it is none the less welcome, and we await the setting up of a conference.
We agree strongly that the interim period should be extended When we debated a similar order last year I referred to the need to make direct rule more sensitive to public feeling, and I believe that the Secretary of State has the same view. We also agree that direct rule is no substitute for a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. However, since the end of the Constitutional Convention I have urged the creation of a political forum. It is essential. The initiative should come from Government in consultation with the political parties. I was therefore glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about holding discussions about constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. If the right, hon. Gentleman is able to reach an agreement on an interim elected body that would give the whole community a proper

647
share in local administration we should like to study the proposals.
We agree that the restoration of a fully devolved legislative system must be acceptable to both communities. Ways must be found of giving back to the people a voice in their own affairs and of giving direct rule a human face. We have found recently that many people in Northern Ireland are in favour of restoring the Queen's representative in Northern Ireland, which could have a unifying effect. The idea needs serious consideration, and when I next see the right hon. Gentleman I should like to talk to him about it.
There is another aspect that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that must be tackled, and that is the matter of Northern Ireland legislation—especially in the form of Orders in Council—that comes before the House. I raised this matter last year and I agree that substantial progress has been made by laying draft Northern Ireland Orders and Bills before the Northern Ireland Committee in the way that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I wonder whether the system could be speeded up. I should like to talk about the possibility of a Select Committee of the House considering Northern Ireland legislation in future. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to discuss that idea with hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the whole House would agree that the Minister was absolutely right to lay great emphasis on the economic plight of the Province. Clearly the Government now look at the deep-seated problems in Northern Ireland with more sympathy than they did a year or two ago. They are to be congratulated on their attitude and the vigorous attempts at salesmanship that have flowed from it.
During the last year the Northern Ireland Office has exerted itself strongly to stimulate the interest of British and foreign businessmen in the economy of the Province which, as experience shows, can bring rich returns to those who invest. Twice the usual number of trade missions have been sent to various parts of the world. I was pleased with the optimism of the Government, because that is an encouraging sign and they should go on being optimistic. In a recent statement the new American Ambas-
648
sador said that Northern Ireland is an attractive place in which to invest.
Of course, we cannot ignore the rather gloomy note of almost all the surveys on the economy that have been carried out during the last year, or the Quigley Report of last October, which the Secretary of State described as a valuable basis for discussion. The concern for the future that it expressed has been endorsed by other inquiries. The Government have not had much to say about these reports, and I should like to know more about the setting up of the proposed new Economic Council for Northern Ireland, Possibly the Minister will refer to this in his speech at the end of the debate. We have been looking forward for many months to the establishment of this important non-political forum, which has been promised for some time. Can we be given a firm date for an announcement? We hope that after its creation the difficult task of dealing with the structural problems of Northern Ireland's economy can be set in hand.
Throughout the year the Opposition have concentrated on the Government's security policy and the need for a sense of realism. I congratulate the Minister and the security forces on the great progress that has been made. The particular form of guerrilla warfare in Northern Ireland requires a new approach—as I believe the Minister realises, because he responded in his speech on 8th June. We have already announced our support for these measures and wish them every success, but the right hon. Gentleman—as a former Secretary of State for Defence— knows that they will take time and that there is none to be lost.
An offensive by the Provisional IRA is predictable—like the serious ambush of the Light Infantry in Belfast yesterday evening, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The deaths of the two young soldiers, aged 18 and 19, must harden the Government's resolve to succeed in their efforts. We express our deep sorrow to the families of those killed and wish those wounded a speedy recovery.
Meanwhile Parliament must continue to speak up for the security forces, particularly about the conditions of service in the Army and the RAF in Northern Ireland, as well as the Ulster Defence

649
Regiment and the RUC. If soldiers are to face this unpleasant type of service, more consideration should be given to their domestic problems. In the debate of 16th June the Secretary of State announced relief for those serving in Northern Ireland from changes in food and accommodation charges. I shall not go into them in detail but are these measures and the increases under phase 2 sufficient to meet the soaring cost of living in Northern Ireland? We hear of cases of married men advising their wives to return to England because, despite these changes, they cannot afford to stay. I have a case of that sort in my constituency. The Ministry of Defence will come under strong pressure this summer. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned and that he will talk to his colleagues about this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peters-field (Mr. Mates) raised the matter of the allowance of 50p for single men serving in Northern Ireland. This is quite ridiculous, especially when the army on the other side of the border is paid three times as much. Is the 50p subject to tax? I should be pleased if we could be told the answer. The right hon. Gentleman should ask his colleagues about the paltry allowance for the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland and about whether—as my hon. Friend for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) suggested— there should not be more for second and third tours, bearing in mind that some units have done no fewer than seven tours. That is a constructive point, which the Minister might consider.
Mr. Mason: I should point out to the Opposition spokesman that during the course of the debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Army is taking note of what he is saying.
Mr. Neave: I am much obliged, and I welcome the Under-Secretary here because in taking note of what I am saying I hope he will take action as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham asked whether the Ministry of Defence inquiry into pay and conditions, which was mentioned in the debate on 16th June, is still proceeding. I know that this may not be the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office but it should be of grave concern
650
to it. It does little good to overstress some of the anomalies that may exist in pay between the Army and the RAF, the UDR and the RUC, but the Secretary of State must be aware that his success and future reputation may well depend on the well-being and morale of the ordinary private soldiers in Northern Ireland.
If it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to give the RUC the major rôle in future security operations, he must have regard to the questions of comparability that arise. Often the police take home twice as much pay as the soldiers. I am sure that the Secretary of State is already familiar with such problems. The Government should therefore look urgently at their pay policy, especially as it affects the Armed Forces and the forces in Northern Ireland, because surely no soldier should be financially worse off through serving in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Defence stated, in a Written Answer on Tuesday, that by retaining No. 41 Commando he hopes to alleviate the burden of continuing duty in Northern Ireland. However, if certain Press stories are even partly accurate, there is strong feeling about these matters among the soldiers.
The Minister gave us an important analysis of the security situation and the type of terrorism that is occurring in Northern Ireland today. The struggle in Northern Ireland today is between two communities of extremely unequal size. I put this slightly differently, but it comes to the same thing. There is a small group of terrorists manipulated and controlled by 100 or so godfathers of crime, pitted against the vast majority of the population who wish only for peace, order and reconciliation.
The terrorists have no realitic political cause. The two communities are, therefore, the dedicated unyielding band of subversives led by the "godfathers", without whose removal it will be impossible to restore order, and the law-abiding people of both religions and varying political persuasions. There can be only one outcome. The overwhelming majority must prevail, but they need all the help the Government can give to bring this bloody eight-year marathon to an end.
Victory has to be gained over the murder gangs of the IRA and the Loyalist thugs who are at war with the State. It

651
was because of the great chance presented by what I call "Mason offensive" that I appealed to the media recently to place more emphasis on efficiency and courage and less on understandable mistakes by those in the front line. I did not ask them to ignore breaches of discipline or allegations of brutality, nor did I suggest that they should be political instruments. The Secretary of State was reported on Friday as having defended the right of the media responsibly—and that is the key word—to publish without censorship what happens in Northern Ireland. I agree with what he said. I was seeking to avoid actions by the media that give a propaganda advantage to the terrorists, especially in their present campaign to discredit the police.
We all agree with what the Secretary of State said about the great changes that have taken place in the security situation in the past year. I am glad that the Army is at last to be used in the much more specialised rôle that I have always advocated, with an increased emphasis on SAS operations that have brought results in South Armagh and elsewhere. The need for SAS-type training for those serving in Northern Ireland has been clearly recognised, and we welcome the covert rôle that the Army is to play.
While the Army has been given new duties calling for great skill and resourcefulness, the RUC has taken on greater responsibilities for carrying on the day-to-day campaign against the terrorists. The recent crime figures show that the force is having excellent results and we congratulate the police officers, and especially the Chief Constable, Mr. Newman, on the reorganisation of the force and the more positive rôle given to the RUC Reserve. We also welcome the recruiting figures for the past year.
The Secretary of State has rightly said that the RUC now has the admiration of every police force in Britain. It enhanced its reputation still further during the recent strike by its firm and impartial handling of the situation. It dealt a sharp lesson to all those who regard intimidation as a legitimate tactic in an industrial stoppage. No doubt the Secretary of State will keep us informed about the prosecutions under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1969 that have resulted from cases of intimidation. On 23rd June, the Under-
652
secretary told us that 40 people had been charged and 110 charges still had to be processed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Gerry Fitt: It was not an industrial dispute.
Mr. Neave: It was a dispute and, without prejudice to what follows, it is essential for public confidence everywhere that the law be upheld.
The RUC is achieving success at a high cost to itself. So far this year, 13 members of the RUC have been killed and 37 injured. The force is clearly in the front line and we owe it to the officers to keep their equipment and training under constant review in order to minimise casualties as far as possible. We must make sure that they have the most effective weapons to deal with various situations. Other police forces in Great Britain and the Irish Republic have a greater range of weapons than has the RUC.
Is the Ml the right weapon for both urban and rural areas? I know that the Chief Constable requested it—I had the pleasure of talking to him about it—but I should not like to confront terrorists with the latest automatic rifles armed only with an Ml. The right weapons for one situation may be unsuitable in another situation. The RUC must also be able to rely on vehicles being supplied promptly when they are needed. This is not always the case at present. Workers at British Leyland should be encouraged to recognise that they can assist the cause of liberation in Northern Ireland by quicker delivery of these vehicles. I hope that the Government will draw attention to that fact.
Finally, the RUC should be spared unnecessary criticism from politicians in Northern Ireland. Recent statements by the SDLP have been disappointing. The great majority of Catholics wish to see the RUC going from strength to strength, and I hope that voice will be given to that desire. Every encouragement ought to be given to young men to join the security forces, particularly the RUC, which continues to have a good level of recruitment.
We support the right hon. Gentleman in his statement on detention. We continue to support the Government in their

653
decision to retain the power of detention, as a last resort but, like them we are in no way committed to its reintroduction. This is a bipartisan matter.
The work of the UDR requires recognition and thanks. It is showing great courage in this difficult time, but its position is not entirely free from difficulty. Like the RUC, the UDR has not been given the backing it deserves in some quarters. Some elaboration of its position when asked to support the RUC is required. In riots, for instance, the UDR could become involved in civil action.
The UDR should also seek to encourage the recruitment of Catholics in ever-larger numbers. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the full-time establishment of the UDR being increased to 2,500. That, in itself, is a good reason for encouraging Catholic recruitment. The enlargement of the force also makes it imperative to clear up the uncertain legal position when the UDR is called to help out in a civil commotion. I know that the Government are well aware of this point.
I agree with what the Secretary of State said about the formation of Mr. Lynch's Government. We look forward to talks with Mr. Lynch and his Ministers because there is a great need for cross-border co-operation to continue, and, indeed, for co-operation in other areas, too.
In praising the Secretary of State recently, I said that the loss of life, the injuries and the reckless destruction in Northern Ireland are intolerable in a free society. Even hospitals are not exempt, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take action about the situation at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. We have had considerable correspondence on this point recently.
I am certain that, if correctly deployed, the security forces can inflict defeat on the terrorists during the next few months. But the security policy must be even handed. The RUC has not received sufficient credit for the conviction of prominent members of the UVF.
Let the Secretary of State get ready for a real drive against the terrorists and the whole community will back him. The only national interest that matters to us all is to see that the people of the Province are liberated from the fear of
654
murder and to promote an air of reconciliation and calm.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneanx: The renewal of these two orders provides an opportunity to take stock of the progress—or lack of progress—since the last occasion on which the House engaged in such an exercise.
The period since 17th December 1976, when we last renewed these orders, has not been uneventful. In the early months of this year, there was a campaign of brutal murder against the security forces, whose successes alarmed the terrorists and other gangsters to such an extent that the terrorists felt that they must counter the effectiveness of the measures taken against them. They acted in a cowardly fashion against the RUC, the RUC Reserve and the UDR. They did their best to deter those citizens from discharging the duties that they had willingly accepted. Not for the first time, the gunmen miscalculated and misjudged the men that they were trying to intimidate. That was borne out on another occasion.
As in constitutional matters, the thugs have succeeded in achieving the opposite of what they intended. They are now being hunted and hounded more than ever before. If they were possessed with any power of reasoning they would see that they are not only failing but that they and their allies are ensuring that the political and military results of their struggles will be even more unacceptable than before.
For us the lesson of the last few months is that there can be no substitute for concentration is rather more than assembling jectives. As a principle of war, that concentration is rather more than assembling the correct forces in the correct place at the correct time. It is also the art of ensuring that the directing brains are focused on the right objectives and, having been focused on those objectives, are not distracted by alternatives, however inviting they might appear to be from time to time.
One such objective has been the increase in the full-time element of the UDR. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are delighted that the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is present. We appreciate and acknowledge all the efforts that he and his Department have made to bring about an

655
increase in the full-time element. However, we are tempted to ask why it has taken so long to implment a decision that was first announced exactly one year ago. If we display a little impatience in these matters it is because the Government appear to be dragging their feet and to be reluctant to implement decisions that have already been made. That gives encouragement to terrorists and to all manner of evil-doers, because they are not convinced of the earnestness of the Government's intentions. It is difficult to justify that passage of a whole year.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence have decided to raise their sights and increase still further the establishment of the full-time element in the UDR. My hon. Friends urge both Ministers to heed the pleas that we have made in the past to speed up and streamline the vetting procedures without lowering standards but ensuring that there is no undue delay in permitting responsible and reliable citizens to play their full part in restoring and maintaining the Queen's peace in Northern Ireland.
We agree with the official Opposition about the introduction of the special anti-terrorist units. I know that it is too easy to belittle their achievements, for the simple reason that little can be said of their successes. Improvements have been evident in certain areas in Northern Ireland. These speak for themselves. We shall certainly support any extension of the deployment of such units, which have proved themselves to be more than a match for the terrorists.
In the debate on 17th December I suggested that we ought to try to create a new attitude among the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that we can point to indications that this is now coming about. There is a new determination to return to a more normal pattern of life. There is a positive discouragement of all forms of law-breaking. There is freer movement and the opening up of town centres, which earlier—through rather misguided efforts—were becoming lifeless and foresaken; exactly the state of affairs which the terrorists and gangsters wanted.
Curiously enough—I am sorry to have to strike a critical note—it is certain
656
elements of the security forces which seem to be slow to respond to this change of mood. They seem to find difficulty in breaking out of what is known as a siege mentality. One sometimes cannot help feeling that they are a little inflexible in their approach.
The Minister will not be surprised if I draw attention to a favourite topic—the security arrangements at Aldergrove Airport. I confess that I always shudder when I receive from the Minister of State a written assurance that everything possible will be done to reduce inconvenience to a minimum. I received one such letter recently and, frankly, when I came to that point where he announced that he was setting in train a new operating procedure to reduce delays I shuddered again. Sure enough, on Monday I had a report from a constituent, Councillor William Bell, a member of the Belfast City Council, who was chosen to represent the city council at a conference in Scarborough.
At noon on Monday 27th June, he was being driven to the airport by his wife. In the car were their two small children aged 1 and 3. On arrival at the checkpoint, or what was grandly called "the surveillance point", he was pulled in and asked whether he would object to his car being searched. Being a law-abiding citizen he agreed to co-operate. Except for his own baggage the car was thoroughly searched. The services of a sniffer dog were called in. The search seemed to all intents and purposes to be thoroughly satisfactory. Then the mystery began and he was told that he could not proceed into the airport terminal with or without his car.
No reason was given. Councillor Bell was detained for 45 minutes. He was released two minutes before his flight was due to leave for Leeds. Not unnaturally he missed the flight. Due to the restricted accommodation at the airport and the fact that his young children were becoming somewhat restless he drove out of the airport, stopped at the checkpoint and asked "Can I have an assurance that I will be spared this procedure when I return to catch the next flight later this evening?" No such assurance could be given. To this day he still does not know the reason for this.

657
The Minister of State has had personal experience of this, so what I have said will not come entirely as a surprise to him. I have no doubt that in the course of the next week or so Councillor Bell and I will once again receive apologies and assurances that this kind of thing will not happen again. We shall accept those assurances until these things do happen again. I suggest that a bit of common sense would greatly improve matters. It would not be beyond the facilities and abilities of the security forces to get in touch with the nearest police station to check the identity of such people. It is hardly likely that a traveller of this kind would be coming for the purpose of planting a bomb at the terminal and then seeking to escape with a wife and two children across open country in broad daylight.
Our half-day debate on 23rd February was followed by our meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. This, taken together with the arrangements announced by the Lord President on 23rd March, provided improvements in discussions on security measures which led to the announcement by the Secretary of State on 8th June.
At this stage I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for the important part that they have played in concentrating attention on specific remedies and spotlighting weaknesses in the security set-up. What one might call our tripartite efforts have produced results. More progress has been made in the past six months than in any comparable period.
We recognise that there will be setbacks and that, faced as we are with unscrupulous criminals, valuable and innocent lives will yet be lost. We share the regret expressed in the House this evening at the tragic murder of the two young soldiers in West Belfast yesterday. We join the hon. Member for Abingdon in expressing our sympathy to their families.
There can be no room for complacency. There must be very close scrutiny of these latest measures and no reluctance to examine and implement new methods if those are considered necessary. Now that a firmer lead has been given, the general
658
public have an obligation to back up members of the security forces who are running enormous risks on behalf of our citizens. Those of us who are elected representatives and who are to some extent influencing events have a very heavy responsibility, because we can no longer claim a moral right to bargain over lives or withhold support from the security forces, which have clearly demonstrated the will and determination to stamp out terrorism in all its forms.
Turning to the Interim Period Extension Order, we have to look back over a period of a year since the last renewal of what is not very accurately described as direct rule. We must say that the improvements in the processing of Northern Ireland legislation represents a considerable advance. For example, under the former unmodified system it would not have been possible to scrutinise and amend the proposals for the compensation for criminal injuries, which are due to be considered tomorrow The advantage to Northern Ireland would be even greater if all the Northern Ireland Members attended and participated, particularly in the rather humdrum Committee work and in the task of ensuring that no opportunity is missed to improve the lot of those who sen them to this House. We can promise them no banner headlines, but they would share with us the satisfaction of at least having discharged their plain duty.
We do not deny that so-called direct rule has many shortcomings. We have evidence of one today. The Secretary of State and the Lord President will confirm that together with them I negotiated over the past five weeks to make sure that these debates today and tomorrow were arranged so as to provide maximum benefit for the people whom we represent. Unfortunately, the arrangements have been to some extent up-ended by certain other developments today. I do not suggest that that is the fault of either right hon. Gentlemen, but it seemed ludicrous that we had these very important items —the most important items in the calendar of Northern Ireland legislation— thrust aside. The BBC spoke this morning of normal business being set aside, but that on which we are engaged tonight is not normal business.
We are providing, I hope, for the continuing good government of Northern

659
Ireland for another year. This is not a matter that should be brushed aside or forgotten. Northern Ireland takes second place to another topic on another occasion I hope that it will be a topic on which there will be a decision and perhaps a vote.
The complaint is often made to me that Parliament feels itself burdened by Northern Ireland legislation, but Parliament must remember that it is a self-imposed burden. I was one of the few hon. Members who voted against that imposition in 1972. Looking around the Chamber I see that there are many absentees from the ranks of the enthusiasts for that imposition, and one wonders what has become of them.
I share the regret of our party colleagues at home that a return to full devolved government in Northern Ireland remains conditional on the acceptance of arrangements which our own electorate would instantly repudiate. We have never accepted that such insistence on exotic structures could be justified.
If the parties in this country are sincere in wanting a return to full devolved government in Northern Ireland, they in turn must be realistic and show a willingness to work for a design which is not altogether different from the Westminster model.
The Secretary of State has given a full account of the discussions that he has had with separate parties in Northern Ireland. There would appear to be general agreement about the need for a level of government above that which exists at district council level. There also appears to be some agreement on the need for democratic control of the area boards. Certainly there is throughout the country and in the ranks of non-political people widespread support for an elected tier to supervise and administer the functions of government which affect people most in their everyday lives. The Secretary of State has confirmed that such a structure would not in any way prejudice the addition of a legislative tier at a later stage, and has referred to the subject of the present discussions as an interim structure.
That clearly indicates that what is being proposed is a first and fairly long step on the road to devolution for Northern Ireland. His assurances should remove the fears that the acceptance of such a
660
limited Assembly would obstruct at some future stage full devolution and, secondly, that it would mean an unnecessary layer of government. In short, the intention as I see it would appear to be to give Northern Ireland something akin to that which already exists in Great Britain. That we welcome. I cannot for the life of me see what Ulster politician would wish—or dare—to object to such a concept.
My earlier mention of the Westminster model reminds me of the topic of representation for Northern Ireland here at Westminster. We were greatly encouraged tonight by what the Secretary of State said and by the terms of the letter which I received from the Prime Minister to-day setting out the terms of reference for a Speaker's Conference. But there seems to be some element of confusion, because in a letter to me yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said:
"I have today confirmed our agreement with the terms of reference which are now proposed."
So I would have thought that we were over that hurdle. I do not see what remaining details can possibly be holding up the operation, and I hope that before we finish tonight we may have an explanation of that point.
Again, there is the unfortunate impression that there has been a dragging of feet. It seems a long time since the Prime Minister and the Lord President announced and committed the Government in principle to full representation for Northern Ireland. That was on 23rd March. One can understand that it might not be entirely within the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but he is in good company tonight, and I hope that being in such company he will take steps to ensure that the pledge which he gave on the summoning of the Speaker's Conference before the recess will be assured and that there will be no slippage at any stage.
We are grateful to the leaders of the other parties for their co-operation. We appreciate the way in which they have facilitated us in giving their consent to the idea of a special Speaker's Conference to deal with Northern Ireland representation only. However, I return to the reasons for haste and the reasons for giving such convincing evidence of the Government's intentions.

661
In the absence of any real evidence of action, we play into the hands of those who for personal advantage belittle the decision and thereby deliberately create suspicion and distrust. It is not in the Government's interest that that should continue. As I have said, any delay in the implementation of security decisions encourages the terrorists and those in the independence lobby in Northern Ireland to believe that Her Majesty's Government and Parliament are somewhat reluctant wholeheartedly to oppose attempts to detach Northern Ireland from the rest of the kingdom.
This is the fifth time that the House is being invited to renew in one form or another what is inappropriately called an interim period order. I have come to the conclusion that six years is long enough for the annual extention of what, way back in 1972, was considered to be a temporary arrangement. I have to tell the House solemnly that I shall not be prepared to support the renewal in its present form, if renewal is necessary, when we come to June or July 1978.
In the next few months those who have obstructed the return of normal government and normal structures of government to Northern Ireland must be brought face to face with reality. If by the end of this year the way is not clear, if there is still no hope of even a start on devolution, the alternative must be faced. At that point preparations must begin to apply to Northern Ireland institutions that exist already for the government of Great Britain. It would not be our first choice, but in our opinion it would be vastly preferable to drift and uncertainty.
Finally, I must encourage the Secretary of State to persevere, to increase the momentum, to exploit every success and to seek to do all in his power to deliver the goods, especially in the political and security spheres. The people of the Province have already had far too many elections, for all the good that they have done. They will not wish to throw back into the melting pot instruments fashioned to improve their lot. They will be in no great hurry to interrupt progress in the political and security spheres, provided that such progress is real and genuine.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr.
662
Molyneaux) has told us of the painstaking negotiations that he has had with Government Ministers to have the Northern Ireland debates this evening and tomorrow and how the whole schedule was thrown out of gear by the debate on the Grunwick dispute. That is something that should not surprise the hon. Gentleman.
The attendance in the Chamber this evening gives an indication that Northern Ireland and its problems are considered to be peripheral by Westminster Members of Parliament. I cannot foresee any change. Whatever Government may be in power, whether they be a Socialist Government such as I now support or a Conservative Government, it will always be the fact that there is a decided disinterest. I do not say that it is malicious. I do not say that United Kingdom hon. Members are being malicious in having no interest in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is situated geographically on the island of Ireland and is no part of the land mass of Great Britain. Therefore, it is understandable that hon. Members representing United Kingdom constituencies should not be terribly concerned about it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt first with the emergency provisions orders. I have made it clear throughout all the times that we have had enactments of these provisions that I do not believe that the introduction of such legislation will of necessity bring peace to the island of Ireland. Of course, they may be necessary. I should be the last to condemn every facet of this emergency legislation. On the other hand, I have strong reservations about its implementation, because there would seem to be a search for a military solution to the almost total exclusion of a political solution as the only hope of bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the security forces in Northern Ireland. I recognise that every country in the world pays great respect to its Army. The United Kingdom will not take lightly to criticism of the Army, particularly as it is operating now in Northern Ireland.
I have repeatedly said on the Floor of the House that the Army is a necessity in Northern Ireland. I do not want the Army to be withdrawn. It would bring about a catastrophe in Northern Ireland

663
if it were withdrawn. However, as an Irishman I hope to live to see the day—in the short or the long term—when it will be unnecessary for the British Army to patrol the streets of my native Belfast.
I bitterly resent what hapened in Belfast yesterday afternoon when two 18-year-old soldiers, within 24 or 48 hours of arrival in that city, met their deaths. I have no hesitation in condemning, with all the vehemence at my command, the murderers who were guilty of killing those two young soldiers. Let not my stand be taken as in any way ambiguous or unequivocal. I do not support killing whether by the British Army, the IRA or the so-called freedom forces. Those two deaths yesterday, just like the thousands that have taken place over the past seven years, were completely unnecessary.
During the past few weeks and days a great controversy has been raging in the United Kingdom about Guardsman Holdsworth of the Coldstream Guards, who was charged with having committed an attempted rape on a young girl in Britain. However the court's decision was arrived at, the result was that he received a suspended sentence. The judge said that the reason for that decision was that the soldier had a career to look forward to in the Army.
I support all the criticisms that have been made in this House and throughout the United Kingdom about that decision. That young soldier should have suffered the full penalty of the law for the crime that he committed. I think that I would have the support of all liberal thinking people for that view. Indeed, I have the support of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, who said that he had no time for people who commit such crimes.
However, I cannot forget that five soldiers of the British Army serving in Northern Ireland were convicted of rape —not attempted rape—and were allowed to go away with suspended sentences. The magistrates in the case said that they were allowing them to go free because they had careers to look forward to in the Army.
If it is wrong—and it is—for a soldier to be given a suspended sentence for an attempted rape in Britain, it is equally wrong for five soldiers found guilty of
664
rape in Northern Ireland to be set free on the same ground. It was sometime last year when the case of the five soldiers was reported in the local Press. The case was heard at Downpatrick. Many people resented what happened. Indeed, I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army at the time about the bitter feelings of resentment in the area. The months which have passed since then have alleviated the feelings of bitterness, but the reporting of the case in England has resurrected them. Where a soldier of the British Army has been found guilty of misconduct the Army should have no hesitation in pointing out this fact, and disciplinary action should be taken as necessary.
I heard yesterday that sometime before the end of July, before the recess, four or five mothers will be coming in a deputation to this House. Each of them is the mother of an innocent person who has been shot by the British Army in Northern Ireland. There is a Mrs. Normey, one of my constituents, and a Mrs. McCooey, also one of my constituents. There is a Mrs. McIlhone from Tyrone. There will also be a mother and father from Armagh and, I believe, one other person.
These are cases in which it has been proved conclusively that a soldier in the British Army, whatever reasons may have been given, was responsible for the killing of innocent people. The courts have subsequently proved the victims to have been innocent, but not one of the soldiers has been disciplined in any way for carrying out the killings. An excuse has always been found—for example, that they heard a shot and thought it came from "over there". In one case a 12-year-old schoolgirl was shot on her way to confession.
The members of the British Army responsible for killing Leo Normey were subsequently found guilty by Northern Ireland courts of planting evidence on persons in order to get them sentenced to terms of imprisonment. This is not only bad for the Army, bad for Britain and bad for Northern Ireland. It will in no way help to bring about confidence in the activities of British military personnel in Northern Ireland.
I know that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) can say that these are only a few cases compared with the number of soldiers who have been killed.

665
I hope he will not say that. I hope that he will agree with me. I am stating once again my convictions that the British Army is necessary in Northern Ireland, and I am not attempting to condemn every soldier, but where the soldiers are worthy of condemnation. I have no hesitation in condemning them. I will defend to the uttermost here the lives of my constituents.
There was a reference by the hon. Member for Abingdon to the threat which has been issued to the Royal Victoria Hospital. I condemn this with some vehemence, because this hospital has done its utmost in the most difficult conditions to try to restore life and limb to many soldiers and to thousands of people who have been victims of the campaign of violence in Northern Ireland. It was in that hospital that the surgeons amputated the limbs of the two young girls who were blown up in the Abercorn disaster. People of all religions have been brought to it for treatment and it has tried in every merciful way to relieve their distress and suffering.
If the IRA is attempting to take over that institution, which has tried to help so many people in the past, irrespective of religion or political belief, every possible action should be taken in order to prevent the IRA from taking it over. I have no hesitation in saying this.
I have justly criticised the Army and the security forces, but I do not hesitate to level the criticism at the RUC. This criticism is levelled not at Englishmen, Welshmen or Scotsmen but at my own fellow countrymen in the RUC, even at people from my own city.
The RUC has lost many people since the outrages began in Northern Ireland. My own political party, from myself down to the member who has just joined, has always been consistent. Where the RUC was attempting to track down people who were guilty of murder, violence, hi-jacking or other terrorist activities, we have unhesitatingly given it our support, provided that it was carrying out its duties in an impartial way. But given the history of the Northern Ireland State, which has been under the control of the Unionist Party for 50 years—it has been almost a one-party State—it is understandable, to say the least, that there would be some suspicions about the impartiality of the
666
RUC. We have come a long way in trying to take steps to make the police force acceptable throughout every area of Northern Ireland.
However, I must repeat that for the first time—and I was born and reared in Northern Ireland—I have been able to look at my television set, read the newspapers and commend the RUC for its impartiality, especially in regard to the strike led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Paisley), who is conveniently absent from this debate. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to come here to justify what he tried to do during the course of that strike. It was not an industrial strike. It had nothing to do with wages and conditions of workers. It was an attempt to subvert the auhority of this Government.
However, the RUC carried out its duties in an impartial manner. I have no hesitation in saying that. But some Provisional and Official IRA men, and some other people, will never accept any police force and will never support me under any circumstances when I say that the RUC is acting in an impartial way. There is that type of person in Northern Ireland society today. But those people and their opinions do not intimidate me. If I believe that the RUC is entitled to be commended, I shall have no hesitation in doing so.
I believe that the RUC recently did very well in bringing before the courts the persons charged with a series of atrocious murders in the North and West Belfast areas. I had to attend the funerals because I knew almost every one of the people involved. Both the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and I attended the funerals. As we were walking behind the cortege, the undercurrent of discussion among people whom I suspect of being IRA men was that the SAS had committed those murders. Some of the relatives of the murdered victims said that the RUC did not care as long as it was Catholics who had been murdered.
Those people were not being anti-RUC. It was their honest-to-God feeling that not enough was being done to apprehend those responsible for the murders. I told those people that I did not believe that. I told them that I felt the RUC was trying to help them. I stand here tonight and commend the RUC for doing that. If in

667
the coming days and weeks the RUC continues to act in that way I shall have no hesitation in commending it, be it in Belfast or wherever else. I shall say it even though some people will say "Gerry Fitt has sold out and has almost become a Loyalist".
Mr. John Carson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people who were murdered in North and West Belfast were Protestants as well as Catholics? I am sorry to introduce religion into it.
Mr. Fitt: There were 11 murders, of which nine were Catholic and two Protestant. I, too, regret that it is necessary to refer to religion in this context.
My own party has issued a statement, and I have led a deputation to the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland. We have voiced our suspicions on several aspects. First, there are a number of rumours— perhaps more than rumours—which I should like to have substantiated or otherwise, emerging from the RUC station in Cookstown where it is alleged that many people are being ill-treated and that brutality is being meted out. The same allegations are being made about suspects who are being interrogated at Castlereagh. These allegations can only help the terrorists. They are the only people who gain from them. I have no hesitation in saying—and a statement was issued yesterday morning by my colleagues which also recognised—that some of these allegations are being made maliciously with the intention of damaging the credibility of the RUC.
But there are a sufficient number of these cases—and I have spoken to the individuals concerned—to lead me to believe that there is a strong argument for investigating them. Last week, for example, in a Northern Ireland court, two IRA men were brought before the court and charged with the murder of another IRA man. I believe that they were two Provisionals, and the charge was that they murdered an Official IRA man. They live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast North. They had signed statements to the effect that they were guilty of murder. Their statements were read to the court. The judge, Lord Justice Jones, a former Unionist Member at Stormont who could not be classified as a supporter of the IRA, or of the
668
minority, or of the SDLP, said after hearing the evidence that there was sufficient room for doubt in the case and that he would not convict because of the allegations of brutality which had been made.
People are now being acquitted because judges in Northern Ireland are not prepared to accept admissions which have been made to the police. That can only help the terrorists. If people have been beaten into a state of mind where they are prepared to sign confessions when they are innocent, that is atrocious and it should be condemned by every Member of this Parliament.
But if I were a member of the IRA, if I had any command or was one of the Godfathers referred to by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), I would hold a seminar and tell all my terrorists "Once you are brought into Castlereagh, say anything. Then go before the court and say that you were beaten into submission in order to say that." That would defeat justice in Northern Ireland. It would be simple for the terrorists to bring about a position where no one believed any statement or confession signed by a guilty person.
It is not me at this point who is criticising the RUC. It is Northern Ireland's courts and judges. I remember the hon. Member for Abingdon, to use the Belfast vernacular almost "doing his nut" at a television programme when a Mr. O'Conner was given a long interview on BBC2 in which he made a series of allegations against the RUC. Everyone shouted "Unfair", "Close down the BBC" "They are all Republicans there", and "Look at the unjust publicity he is getting". Surely the RUC could have completed its inquiries into the allegations made on that occasion so that we had a result one way or the other. The police did not appear on that programme. They said that they were carrying out investigations into the allegations. But surely they had sufficient time to come up with an answer one way or the other. They should have put forward a reply to the serious allegations that were being made.
Then, on the subject of recruitment to the RUC, in the south of Belfast we do not have a problem with the RUC Reserve. I can only go on what some of my SDLP colleagues who represent

669
rural areas tell me. They have the greatest suspicion about members of the RUC Reserve. If recruits are being sought for the RUC and the RUC Reserve, I urge the Minister to apply the strictest possible standards to those who are candidates for entry into these forces. If there is any doubt about the character or calibre of the recruits, it can only reflect discredit on the force. One can see what has happened already to the security force known as the UDR. Many members of that force have been brought before the courts and charged with the most vile things.
Let us move from the security situation and consider the order which extends the period of direct rule. The most important thing that has been said about the order was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South in his closing remarks. He said in clear, unequivocal terms that he would not be prepared this time next year to endorse the prolongation of this legislation. That does not surprise me one little bit. We all know that he and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) do not want devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. They want something that will lead to the total integration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
One has only to read Press reports which show that the right hon. Member for Down, South said at one meeting that he wanted some form of GLC-type administration and then at another meeting of the Unionist establishment said that he did not want that and wanted something else. His two speeches succeeded in confusing his Unionist audience—and that is not the most difficult thing to do in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the path to total integration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is fraught with difficulties and is very dangerous. Different peoples cannot be integrated. The history of relations between Ireland and England should warn the Government here to be very wary of any attempts to foist upon them ideas being put forward by certain Unionist representatives. These ideas are not being put forward by all Unionists. I do not apply my strictures to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder).
Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Member saying that the people of Northern Ireland
670
should be denied local government as it is enjoyed in Great Britain?
Mr. Fitt: Yes. I have no hesitation in saying that. The whole history of Northern Ireland shows it, and the present outbreak of troubles was brought about by what happened in local government in the Province. The Scarman Report showed very clearly that local authorities were operating in an unfair way.
Mr. Powell: Does the hon. Member disapprove of the existing district councils, and does he wish to abolish them?
Mr. Fitt: The existing district councils have been denuded of any importance in the functions that were given to them. I am not criticising the councils; I am a member of one of them. I bitterly oppose any attempt to restore functions to the district councils in Northern Ireland and I think that such an attempt is being made in an underhand way.
We hear a lot in Northern Ireland about the so-called Molyneaux plan. I think that that plan is notable by its absence. I do not think that the hon. Member for Antrim, South even knows what sort of a plan he is trying to put forward. We do not know what sort of administration he wants. Does he want a GLC-type administration? Does he want a one-tier system? Does he want to combine several areas together?
Mr. Molyneaux: The reason why I have not spelt out the nuts and bolts is that it would be taken as the Official Unionist plan. It would be far better for the Secretary of State to take the initiative and to invite parties to contribute their views and for the Secretary of State to jog those parties to reach the ultimate objective. But I believe that it would be wrong for me, as an Official Unionist, to present a blueprint which other people would regard as being foisted upon them.
Mr. Fitt: I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell the House that he has not engaged in any conspiracy with the hon. Member for Antrim, South in foisting on the people some kind of local government agency, because that is what has been said. I think that the apology given to the House will cause more concern in Northern Ireland than if the hon. Member for Antrim, South had not intervened at all.

671
I have my reservations about the setting up of a Speaker's Conference. I do not believe that one can seek closer ties with the United Kingdom and at the same time reject ties with those who live on the island of Ireland. It is a geographical reality that the six counties of Northern Ireland are on the island of Ireland, but we must remember that there is no Stormont and no forum in Northern Ireland. We know that there have been devolution debates in this House, and we also know that there will be no diminution in the number of hon. Members coming from Scotland to this House to represent their constituents. Nobody knows what will be the end of these debates. Speaking on behalf of my party, I wish that the idea of a Speaker's Conference had never been mooted. But if there is a Speaker's Conference we should like to avail ourselves of any opportunity to put forward the point of view of those who need representation in Northern Ireland.
I repeat my hope that there will not be a Speaker's Conference. I do not believe that one can set up such a conference with the intention of creating more seats at Westminster to the exclusion of trying to take steps to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland. I believe that the creation of political structures in Northern Ireland, with the support of both the majority and the minority communities, is far more important than the granting of more seats at Westminster. If we were to be given four more seats in this House, two seats on one side and two on the other, or even if we were to be given anothed six Westminster seats, would it make any significant difference to happenings in Northern Ireland? We want locally-elected members sitting in Parliament in Northern Ireland and having behind them the support of the whole community.
The Secretary of State did not have a great deal of time to devote to the most important aspect of the situation in Northern Ireland—namely, the economy. It is almost taken for granted that Northern Ireland always has a 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. unemployment rate. My party has recently been in touch with the Secretary of State and told him that within a month there will probably be 10,000 young people under the age of 21 who will be unemployed in Northern Ireland. If that is not a recipe for frustra-
672
tion, despair, distress and ultimately for the staging of violence, I do not know what is.
The Secretary of State also said that he was prepared, in conformity with statements in the House yesterday, to take steps to alleviate the plight of the young people in Northern Ireland. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman on this score, but when he says that young people will be given £18 while they are unemployed I must remind him of the many old-age pensioners in Northern Ireland who have worked all their lives to create some kind of society in Northern Ireland and who will not be receiving such sums of money. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman, but I am pointing out that those old people are entitled to some consideration.
The hon. Member for Abingdon referred to the Quigley Report. That report was welcomed—if one can welcome a report which carries such depressing news about Northern Ireland. At least it highlighted the extent of the problem, and we were told that action was to be taken immediately. Eight months later, I must say that I have not seen much action on that report. As the Secretary of State has rightly said, by far and away the most important problem facing Northern Ireland is of unemployment. Immediate steps should be taken to discuss all the issues that were raised by publication of the Quigley Report.
I know that many of the problems that affect Northern Ireland are unique to that part of the United Kingdom, and we shall have an opportunity later this evening and early tomorrow morning of discussing them in greater detail, particularly during debate on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order. I urge the Secretary of State, in discussing the security of members of the security forces—whether the Army, the UDR or the RUC—to understand that reservations are held about the security forces. They are not held maliciously. Nobody deliberately wants to be anti the security forces, but those suspicions should be examined and taken for what they are—that is, an honest attempt to create a society in Northern Ireland in which it will be unnecessary to have security forces present in such large numbers.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: I must confess at the outset that I find it rather difficult to follow the rather tortuous thinking of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I do not want to be unkind to him in any way, because I have great respect for the courage that he has shown and because I have no doubt about his sincerity in wishing to improve the political situation in Northern Ireland and to bring greater stability to that Province. I hope that he will take these comments in the spirit that they are offered.
As I listened to the hon. Member to-night I could not help feeling that he protested too much. He may have good reasons for putting the emphasis on protest, but in the situation in which we now live our duty is to be wholeheartedy in our support of the forces of law and order. It is also our duty to support the institutions of State as best we can, no matter what the defects may be. That is not to say that we should not criticise. It is our duty as elected representatives to criticise.
However, I thought as I listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, West that his protest against the actions of a small minority in the security forces—whether it be the Army, the RUC or the UDR — far outweighed the other aspects of his speech. There is no hon. Member on either side of the House who will say that a soldier or policeman never makes a mistake. However, we should be united in paying tribute to the gallant men in all the security forces for their courage and steadfastness in doing what must be the most difficult job in the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall be able to enlist the hon. Member for Belfast, West in building up a growing respect for those who serve the community so well.
On this annual occasion I feel that we are perhaps being too glib in our approach. This is not an occasion from which we can draw satisfaction. It is an occasion of failure. We are renewing a system of government that cannot in any way be described as democratic, or as fitting in with the concept of British parliamentary democracy. Of course, one can say that the situation is such that there is nothing else left open to us, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has said
674
this is the fifth or sixth occasion upon which we have renewed this legislation.
This is not good enough. I agree that this time next year the Northern Ireland representatives should have grave reservations about renewing the order. I believe that a devolved legislature and Government is of the utmost importance and the first priority in Northern Ireland, and I am disappointed that we are now further from that than we were a year ago. If we are unable to make progress towards devolution we must, in the interests of the Province, look at some other way of injecting stability. That is not to say that I shall give up my endeavours to get a devolved parliamentary institution as quickly as possible, but the Government can no longer expect us to rubber-stamp their inability to provide proper democratic government in Northern Ireland.
The window-dressing to make direct rule more acceptable is nothing but a palliative. It does nothing to disguise or diminish the horrible truth that Northern Ireland does not enjoy democratic government in the fullest sense of the word.
Our efforts must be directed towards putting that right. We have a duty in this respect, but the main responsibility lies with the Government, and I have not seen the same sort of lack of decisiveness in their approach to government in other parts of the United Kingdom, though so far their successes have not been impressive in those regions, either. However, they have at least grasped the nettle and it is now their duty to create a framework for positive development in Northern Ireland, preferably with a devolved legislature and Government. This is the key to all our problems. It would end the uncertainty that hampers and hinders the restoration of peace, law and order, economic growth and social advance.
I do not believe that there is an interim stage that will carry us over the uncertainty that is doing so much harm to our Province constitutionally, economically and socially. I do not see any other form that will bring about the reconciliation that is so urgently needed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South, that it is unrealistic to say that one is committed to a form of parliamentary devolution and then to set unrealistic
675
terms of reference. We want reconciliation and institutions of government that are acceptable and that enjoy the confidence of the whole community. Anyone who seeks to achieve that by setting aside the normal rules of democracy is a fool. We shall get nowhere if we keep evading this reality.
I find it irritating when hon. Members rise in great indignation to insist that majority rule is the key to parliamentary democracy, when, in the context of Northern Ireland, their enthusiasm is in exactly the opposite direction. That is no way to make progress in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the Secretary of State should take into account the great body of information that is available and apply his mind to establishing a suitable form of parliamentary devolution for Northern Ireland. The only thing that is open to doubt is whether a step towards a devolved Parliament is likely to bring about increased opportunity for peace and stability, or otherwise. It is only a question of time. It is not a question of what has to be done, or how it has to be done. The problem is to do it in a way that will bring confidence to the community, increase the hope for peace and bring stability to that beleaguered people.
I believe that it can be done. However, it cannot be done if we simply leave a vacuum on the ground. Politicians are not saints. One of our weaknesses is that we are at our most defective when we do not have to carry the burden of responsibility. If we are to get the best out of Ulster politicians, or out of politicians anywhere, it must be in the context of responsibility for what they do and say. Therefore, the Government's policy in the next year must reflect that it has faced up to the challenge. They must invite the politicians of Northern Ireland to share in a positive way the responsibility of making progress towards devolution. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long to hear from the Government about that matter.
My regret is that the approach to devolution in the United Kingdom has involved tattered bits and pieces. The strength of the United Kingdom would be better served if we had similar forms of government throughout the kingdom. That is perhaps being idealistic.
676
Northern Ireland cannot wait for politicians to sort out the United Kingdom picture as a whole. I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that anything that he shapes for the better government of Northern Ireland should be capable of fitting into a pattern of devolved institutions throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that one day that will happen. I hope that Northern Ireland's form of government in the near future will be compatible with that which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall have the same standards of democracy rather than the double talk in the White Paper on direct elections to Europe, which suggested one franchise for Great Britain and another for Northern Ireland. Such thinking is not good enough. It will not instil confidence in the people of Northern Ireland.
These days it is the thing to do to pour scorn on the failure of the strike. As we recognise the failure, let us also appreciate that there were serious symptoms behind it that were shared by many people who took no part in it. The situation should disturb the complacency of us all as we consider the renewal of this legislation. If that strike had not been embarked upon in a foolish way there could have been a different picture in Northern Ireland.
The more immediate problem is that of people dying, being maimed and living in fear. It might not seem a real situation, or even critical, to these almost empty Benches, but the problem is real in Northern Ireland. I would be the last to give aid and comfort to the enemy of society, but I feel inhibited about being unduly critical of the way that law and order is being enforced in Northern Ireland. I certainly do not want to give the impression that progress is not being made. It is being made.
What I question is whether progress is being made fast enough or whether it is being made in a way that can last. This is not the first time that we have been invited to take note of the change of tone in the terrorist campaign—of the ups and downs of the statistics of terrorism. We can all remember many occasions when, with great optimism, we have been invited to take note of the fact that the number of arrests and convictions had risen and the number of explosions and shootings had fallen. Only a short time

677
later our stomachs have heaved again with a fresh sense of outrage.
I hope that I am proved wrong. I hope that we shall not see another cycle of viciousness. I agree that the IRA is weaker now than it has been for a long time, but I do not think that it has been sufficiently weakened to give any reason for the community to feel safer. I have a fear that the measure of weakness that now exists could propel it into a fresh chapter of horror. Are we really satisfied with the situation? The Secretary of State can, with considerable satisfaction, draw attention to the success of the security forces and to the recent statements on arrest, but he must know, as we all know, that the people who mastermind this campaign of terrorism are in no way seriously deflected from their purpose.
I find that there is a little inconsistency in the Government's attitude here. We are told about the growing isolation of the IRA. Once we suggest that the forces of law and order be given greater powers, or that the penalties for these dastardly deeds be increased to match the dimensions of the crime, we are told that this cannot be done, because it would create a wave of sympathy for the terrorists. We must ask ourselves: Are the people recoiling from the horror of terrorism? Is the IRA really being beaten? If it is, surely the people should be prepared in all conscience to support reasonable, rational measures for ending the terrorism.
There are several lines of approach and I know that the Secretary of State is continually addressing his mind to them. We could follow the example of the Irish Republic; we could change the onus of proof in some respects. I confess that at one time I thought along those lines. On balance I came down against that, because I believe that the integrity of our legal system is far more important than short-term advantage. If we have to deal with a war situation it is better to deal with it in that context than to mess about with a legal system intended to cope with ordinary crime.
It is because of that recognition that I support the renewal of the emergency provisions legislation, although I do not believe that in itself it is a significant
678
weapon to facilitate or step up the base for the defeat of terrorism. While we may need it, and it may well be used one day, as the Secretary of State says, in the last resort, our duty is to try to avoid disastrous results and see whether we cannot, within the framework of the criminal law, devise a code that is adequate and acceptable to the situation.
The Secretary of State has told us, I believe—my memory is bad, so I will be corrected if I am wrong—that about 290 people have been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of over 10 years. That is a fairly impressive figure. But while it impresses us sitting here, and people on the periphery, the tragedy is that many people, including those who have gone to prison, do not believe that they will ever serve anything like that term. Somehow or other the message has got to be got over that the law is what it is and that it means what it says. There is a big credibility gap, which needs to be tackled.
I turn, briefly, to the bread-and-butter issues of politics. It is difficult to deal with these problems when there is the present great instability and uncertainty, but one cannot sit back and do nothing. I am sorry that we, as parliamentarians, have not had an opportunity to debate in public and put on record our views on how the bread-and-butter issues, the day-to-day politics, should be developed.
While one may appreciate the opportunity of going to the Secretary of State privately to say "I think you should do this and do that", what matters in politics is what one is prepared to say publicly, what one will stand up for in front of the electorate. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West that the Quigley Report is to be welcomed, even though it contains a great deal of unpalatable information. It helps us to face reality. We have not had an opportunity to debate that report, either of the Floor of the House or in the Northern Ireland Committee.
We have had papers galore from the Government, who can spend far too long reciting policy documents which have been issued to us with invitations to comment. But we have been given no opportunity to debate those documents, for example, the document setting out the strategy for the physical development and improvement of the infrastructure of Northern

679
Ireland is very important. The sooner that sort of issue is settled the better. Otherwise, economic and social planning can go haywire.
I happen to think that that document is the greatest lot of nonsense that I have set my eyes on for a long time. But at least it should be given an airing. I can write to the Secretary of State privately and say that it is a lot of nonsense, but it is important that the people of Northern Ireland should know why I think that it is a lot of nonsense, and they should be able to listen to the argument between the Government and myself or other hon. Members who might hold different views.
What about education and family law —matters that touch individuals very closely? The other day we had an education statement of considerable importance and far-reaching consequences, made not to the elected representatives of the people but outside the House. I have no idea when we shall be able to say in Parliament, either in Committee or in the House, what we think about it. I know that I can go to the Secretary of State or write to him and say all sorts of things about the latest declaration on education policy, but I ask the Secretary of State to take on board the fact that that is not how parliamentary politics work, that the word of a politician is only as good as the word that he utters before his electorate and has to answer to them for.
That is the greatest weakness in the system that we now enjoy, the so-called direct rule. The Government are not adequately answerable to Parliament let alone the people. I believe that it was Lord Hailsham who once went on record as describing the whole process of parliamentary government in the United Kingdom as an "elective dictatorship". One can argue about that, but the so-called direct-rule provisions certainly are elective dictatorship. I want us to get away from that as speedily as possible. Until we do, it is the duty of the Government to see that as much as possible of the policy decision taking is done within the framework of Parliament, that the people have an opportunity of hearing the debate and adjudicating upon it, and that one day all of us will have to answer to the electorate for our decisions and the sides that we took in the controversy.
680
I regard tonight's debate as a failure. We are merely reporting lack of progress, but I would not want to end on that note. I want to reiterate that the political and constitutional problems of Northern Ireland are capable of quick solution, provided we are not asked to tackle them from what is now called a vacuum—the Secretary of State calls it a whirlpool. Whatever one calls it, it is a situation in which politicians have very little positive rôle play and very little responsibility for their actions.
On this occasion, I gladly support the renewal of the legislation before us, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South that it has gone on too long and that next year will have to be very different.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: We have listened to outstanding speeches from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). If I find that so much of what they say seems to ring so true, it is because I, too, have been thinking about the future of Northern Ireland and have had a chance to read the speech by the Secretary of State on 8th June. I shall return to that speech later.
I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who said that Northern Ireland was peripheral to the interests of other hon. Members. However, the Army in Northern Ireland is drawn from regiments that draw their soldiers from all parts of the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland. Since the county regiment from my constituency has served in Northern Ireland, I do not feel it wrong, as an English Member, to involve myself in the security of Northern Ireland by speaking in the debate. I only wish that more of my hon. Friends and more Labour Members were here. The shooting incident yesterday bears out that the security forces in Northern Ireland are risking life and limb every day of the week. Two more Englishmen died yesterday in the Falls Road.
I was unhappy about the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the RUC and the Army. He claimed to be giving them support, but there was an opaqueness

681
about the clarity of his defence that left me in some doubt as to what he was saying. If he is uncertain of what the RUC is doing about the investigation of Mr. O'Connor's case, I can assure him that if he writes to the Chief Constable, as I did, he will be told. I do not think there is any need to make a suggestion in the House that somehow the matter is being swept under the carpet, thus leading to an implied doubt about the integrity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary which I do not think is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only myself who has cast doubts about it? Is he aware that two High Court judges who are members of a respected judiciary in Northern Ireland have done so? It is they who have cast doubts on whether the RUC has used brutality on suspects.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was talking about Mr. O'Connor of Enniskillen. I say no more, because I suspect that I have made my point abundantly clear.
After listening to the speech of the Secretary of State, having read his speech of 8th June, he will forgive me when I tell him that I found a certain similarity in the two texts. However, there was a statement in his speech of 8th June—I cannot say for certain whether it appeared in his speech tonight—in which he said:
"there is no acceptable level of violence."
None of us would disagree with that. He then said:
"There is no lack of will to bring the Province back to peace and normality."
But what is the normality to which the Secretary of State referred? Obviously, that was the question worrying the hon. Member for Antrim, South and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East. One suspects that the Secretary of State equates peace and normality in Northern Ireland as being one and the same thing. I wondered whether he had given much thought to the use of the word "normality" and whether he meant that he was going to give Northern Ireland peace by returning to the 1967 situation with the parliamentary procedures and institutions that it then possessed, or whether he had some other idea of the normality that he thinks Northern Ireland should reasonably enjoy.
682
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is the normality of being properly represented in this place? Is it true that, when the Speaker's Conference has made its decision about how many more Members Northern Ireland should have in the House of Commons, it will be the General Election after next before those Members will take their places? I ask that question because I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a duty to tell us as he represents the Government of Northern Ireland at this moment.
Mr. Powell: One of the difficulties that the Secretary of State faces in answering that question is that he does not know the date of the next General Election. The answer to the question must to some extent depend upon whether the life of this Parliament is to be another six months or two and a half years.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's comment, but at the same time there is a doubt in everyone's mind as to how soon the extra Northern Ireland Members will appear. The hon. Member for Belfast, West went cut of his way to say that he wanted to see no more Members from Northern Ireland in this House. Does he feel the same about Euro-Members from Northern Ireland? Would he prefer that they did not go to Europe? If it is possible for the House of Commons to debate direct elections next week with the intention of putting on the statute book an Act that will send a whole lot of people from the United Kingdom in general to a European Parliament, it seems strange that to do the same thing, in effect, by bringing the Northern Ireland representation up to its democratic level will take as long as I have suggested.
In talking about normality, perhaps we are merely talking about the end of terrorism or its defeat. But that in itself is not enough. The defeat of terrorism is the beginning of a new era for Northern Ireland and, therefore, the Government have a responsibility to the House of Commons to outline their thinking about new political institutions.
When we are told, as we are told endlessly, that the Secretary of State has met the political parties and discussed the various issues, and that when they are able to come to some common agreement he will take the next step in the

683
re-creation of political institutions for Northern Ireland, I wonder why the Government do not say the same about Scotland or Wales. I wonder why they do not tell us that until the Scottish nationalists outside the House of Commons have come to an agreement with them about devolution there will be no devolution Bill. But the Government do not say that, because they believe that they govern in Scotland and Wales—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
Question again proposed.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I therefore reinforce the point that it is not enough for the Government to ask us to renew these orders tonight and to tell us that they seek devolved legislative government for Northern Ireland, that they are engaged in consultations and that they are bending every effort to reach their objective when in fact they are doing absolutely and precisely nothing, even to the extent of not giving Northern Ireland the local government structure that any of us would consider fair or democratic.
I think that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have an exceptional opportunity to take Northern Ireland forward politically. Whether the strike might have been better organised is not for me to say. But in my view—the view of a Member of Parliament for an English constituency —the people of Northern Ireland showed decisively by their rejection of it that they wished to place their future in the hands of constitutional, not para-military, means. Because they decided to back constitutional means and to support their elected representatives, in a sense they said to the Government "You know what our feelings and ambitions are, but we will back the legal process to achieve those ambitions". One of those ambitions must
684
surely be the proper political institutions to give Northern Ireland the same political status as any other region of the United Kingdom.
I ask the Government not to break faith with that new trust that they now possess and not to waste the opportunity simply because they cannot make up their mind what peace and normality for Northern Ireland really will mean when at last the terrorists have been defeated.
Having said that, I should like to comment on some of the security aspects in Northern Ireland. What we have heard about the increase in numbers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the fact that those numbers can be increased still further must make us believe that the policy of strengthening the police force and placing the emphasis of security on the police is being borne out in fact.
I wonder what further thought has been given to the question of equipment. My hon. Friend the Member for Abing-don (Mr. Neave) has touched on the question of Land Rovers and carbines. But, as the Minister of State may have seen, there was a worrying article in the Daily Telegraph this week pointing out that this equipment was not coming forward in anything like the quantity that was required and that the carbines had had to be sent back to the manufacturer because they were faulty. To have a larger police force that does not possess the right equipment seems to defeat the objective of making that police force the centre-piece of the security forces. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us more about how the re-equipping is going.
I should like to know how many computers the police have so that, in collecting information and making it available throughout the Province, they have the same up-to-date electronic means as Scotland Yard. Lastly, will the Minister tell the House whether the police have the same kind of radio communications equipment as the Army so that, if need be, the police and the Army can be on the same network and, therefore, work more satisfactorily together?
What the Secretary of State has said about the Army has vindicated the comment so often made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon about the need to have specialist troops, SAS-type troops,

685
to handle this sort of operation. One applauds the various other suggestions put forward by the Secretary of State.
I have referred to the Daily Telegraph and do so again, because I was worried when I read a story which told me that a married private soldier in Northern Ireland was earning precisely 76p more than a married unemployed person. If that be the case, it is scandalous and is a situation which makes the Review Body on pay look as though it is incredibly out of touch with the realities of men such as the two private soldiers who lost their lives yesterday and of all the other soldiers who are risking their lives every day in Ulster. I feel sure that we would all wish to see our Government ensuring that those who are taking the risks were paid properly for taking those risks.
Concerning security, I ask the Minister of State once again if he will say something about the use of the Territorial Army detachments in Northern Ireland. I admit that I do not know their precise number. But, in answer to a Written Question I put down to the Secretary of State for Defence, I was told by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army that
"The rôle of the TAVR throughout the United Kingdom is to complete the Regular Army's Order of Battle in war. The TAVR has no rôle in support of the security forces' operations in Northern Ireland, although as part of their training members of the TAVR do mount guard over their own centres."— [Official Report, 25th June 1976; Vol. 913, c. 643–44.]
686
At a time when the UDR is being pressed into very regular patrol work and guarding duties are taking up many hours of spare time, I find it incredible that those in the Territorial Army who are meant, in the Minister's words,
"to complete the Regular Army's Order of Battle"
apparently play no part in the security duties in the Province. I wonder whether any of us can justify keeping that group of men outside the security operations until such time as Northern Ireland has returned to peace and normality.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about optimism. He might perhaps have added "complacency". Certainly the figures relating to charges against people have enormously improved. The amount of terrorism has greatly decreased, but the threat is still there, and nowhere else in the United Kingdom would we put up with this level of terrorism.
I hope that the present trend will be continued, but I am sure that with that hope must be a continuing determination, and the efforts of our security forces must go hand in hand with a willingness on the part of the Government to look afresh at the political initiatives and, if need be, at least to express their thinking in a Green Paper, so that we in the House of Commons are not left in the present uncertainty and fog that seem to exist on the issue.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: In confining myself to a specific security problem, I do not wish to create the impression that I am dismissing many comments of moment and importance in the speech of the Secretary of State, particularly those related to employment and industry and the wider security issues. Indeed, if I might pause at this stage and give credit to the Minister responsible for commerce and industry in Northern Ireland for the alacrity, industry and enthusiasm with which he has responded to opportunities to increase employment in Northern Ireland, this is no more than his due. But, having done so, I put it to the Minister responsible for industry that I am most concerned about the function of the Local Environmental Development Unit in Northern Ireland. It seems to me in some areas LEDU is creating unemployment and not helping to solve the unemployment problem.
I am also concerned about the contribution which the Northern Ireland Development Agency is making to the present situation. I think of one particular instance. During Northern Ireland Question Time last week the Minister referred to Strathearn Audio. I do not believe that Government money should be sunk into companies which can never compete with other nations which are producing specialised kinds of products.
There are many reasons for this, all of which I am sure are well known to the Minister. One of the most important is that such companies will never compete with the Far East countries which use underpaid female staff. I therefore ask the Minister to look at projects very carefully before sinking Government money into them, even though I know that he is concerned to create employment. If that sort of wisdom is not applied, we compound the problem of joblessness in Northern Ireland and get a poor economic return.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) when he spoke about the Quigley Report. I should very much like to have an opportunity of expressing views about that report, as would my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I quickly return to the specific security issue that I wish to ventilate tonight be-
688
cause I feel that it is of utmost importance. I refer to Provisional IRA involvement in the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. I do not believe that I am exaggerating or putting the problem too highly when I say that the battle which is going on there tonight, and which has gone on for the last five years, is a battle for complete and utter control in that hospital. The Royal Victoria Hospital is a prize that is up for grabs between the Provisionals and the British Government. Unfortunately I believe, and I have been led to believe by many consultants and other notable members of the staff, that at present the Provisionals appear to be winning that battle hands down.
I wish to substantiate the claim that the IRA is definitely involved in the Royal Victoria Hospital. Just this week the police have been given names, and have had photographs submitted to them on which the faces are clearly displayed, of persons belonging to the IRA who are on the staff at various levels in that hospital. That is not mere conjecture. It is a statement that can be substantiated by the RUC.
I turn to the question of missing equipment. The Minister will have heard about the theft of £70,000-worth of food supplies. Those supplies were not stolen but were deliberately misdirected to St. Mary's Training College on the Falls Road. Vehicles belonging to the Health and Social Services Department, which were used to deposit that £70,000-worth of food in the training college, were ordered by a member of the staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital.
I understand that just today, when the police went to the training college, they discovered that £12,000-worth of that £70,000 bulk had been misplaced, removed or stolen—one can use whichever term one likes. It was a consultant, and one of the morning newspapers in Northern Ireland, who drew the attention of some politicians to the theft of very important photographic material and typewriters. The interesting thing is that a key was obtained which could only have been obtained by a member of the staff of the Royal Victoria Hospital. So we have, in the removal of equipment, serious and important evidence that there

689
is definite IRA involvement in the Royal Victoria Hospital.
I come to the pressure exerted on the staff of that hospital. There are two names. I have no wish to mention them in this debate. I believe that it would be irresponsible to do so. But I shall give the names to the Minister if he would like them. They are two people who have definitely been told not to report for work in the hospital because they are part-time members of the security forces. They have been told that probably they will be re-established in another section of the health and social services. This is the kind of problem which is intensified in that hospital and the kind of pressure which is put on staff at all levels, from the security personnel right up to the consultants.
The pressure is also felt by the nursing staff. I know that the Minister of State will want to join me in paying tribute to the nursing and medical staff of the hospital, who do a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. But some of the nurses are molested on their way to and from their rooms within the hospital complex. This again is not hearsay. It can be established directly by consultants in the hospital.
I come to the morale of the staff. Obviously the problems that I have outlined to date are bad enough, but when the fact emerges that the chief security officer in the hospital responsible for the security personnel—the men who patrol the grounds and precincts of the hospital —is himself a known IRA man, one can visualise the great damage that that inflicts on the morale of the staff in the Royal Victoria Hospital. This is the man who is responsible for employing other security personnel. He is known to be linked directly with the Provisional IRA. Morale is at an all-time low at present. How can it ever recover when that kind of problem obtains?
We also know that people who have been convicted of theft have been reestablished in their original positions which involve no small amount of trust. There again, a great wound is inflicted on the morale of the staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital.
I come, then, to a very important matter relating directly to the British
690
Army. It concerns the strategic importance of the RVH. If the British Army were removed from the precincts of the hospital, it would be a strategic victory for the IRA. At present, British troops are located in such a position as to be able to intercept the movements of the IRA on four roads known to be used frequently by that reprobate organisation. If the troops were removed from the hospital, gone would be the possibility of immediate interception and gone would be the possibility of catching some of these reprobates in full flight and bringing them before the courts. No one knows that more than the commander of the IRA in the Falls Road area. So the strategic importance of the Army within the precinct of the hospital cannot be overstated.
I ask hon. Members to consider the strategic importance to the IRA of gaining control in the Royal Victoria Hospital. The fact is that IRA men would have an advantageous position to inflict all kinds of physical terror upon neighbouring Loyalist law-abiding areas. They would have at their immediate disposal medical supplies which could be used to bolster up their troops and fit them again for warfare.
I come next to the wider issue of violence in the West Belfast area. I do not believe that if the IRA gained control of the Royal Victoria Hospital it would be satisfied with that. It is not a one-off situation. Over the past seven years the IRA has made concerted effort to control the seven-mile strip or enclave stretching from Castle Street to the Twin-brook Estate. If it could do this, the IRA could operate within that area extracting further funds and exploiting the minority community who do not really want anything to do with this reprobate organisation.
Because of the absence of British forces, the IRA would be free to exploit the people and operate from the area. Also, the organisation would have easy access to the heart of the city and would have an escape route laid on. Because of the present involvement of the British Army in the Royal Victoria Hospital, that possibility does not exist now. The issue of violence in the wider context of West Belfast must not be divorced from the problem of IRA involvement in the Royal Victoria Hospital.

691
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East pointed out the difficulty that we face in deciding between the innovation of making a change in the law of evidence so that we can grapple with apprehending the IRA before its members carry out their dastardly deeds and resorting once more to internment. He was right to pose this difficult choice. Whatever optimism may be gleaned from the figures of IRA members brought before the courts, the fact is that policemen are being killed just as frequently as ever. Army personnel are involved in these murderous activities as much as they were before. There is little comfort for the people of Northern Ireland or of the rest of the United Kingdom in being told that the detection rate is improving greatly when the dreadful scars are as deep and as numerous as before.
I have not made up my mind about the two choices before us. Something attracts me to a change in the law of evidence. I realise that this would put policemen in the front line, but they are there already. The Republican Government in the South has not had a 100 per cent. success record, and I appreciate that fact. I urge the Government to take seriously the need to choose one or the other, because the lull which appears to have descended on Northern Ireland is only temporary.
If one looks at the past seven years, one sees that at this time of the year there is naturally a lull in IRA activity, but this inevitably disappears in the autumn and once again there are horrific bombings, murders and killings. I leave the difficult choice with the Government.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I believe that it has escaped him yet again that if a political solution were found tomorrow—whether an exotic type of power-sharing Government or a straightforward Government based on the Westminster structure—the IRA would still keep on fighting. The men of violence would still operate on the streets of Belfast. We must recognise that we are fighting two battles. One of them is a battle for the minds of people in Northern Ireland, and particularly for the minds of the members of the minority community.
692
I believe that a great deal has been achieved, through the activities of my colleagues in this House, to reassure members of the minority community that, whatever blasphemous propaganda led them to believe that we were jaundiced and unreliable, those rumours and lies are unfounded. I hope that those who are concerned will think again. The battle for people's minds in Northern Ireland must be pursued, and it can be won. But even if it is won, despite the mistakes of the Roman ecclesiastics and the Southern politicians who were irresponsible in their views about defeating the gunmen, I believe that there is only a small group of people who are equipped to beat the gunmen. I refer to the legitimate forces of the Crown. Therefore, there must be a political pursuit, but there must be also a military pursuit in Northern Ireland.
It was not without great significance that the hon. Member for Belfast, West ran away from the possibility of drawing Northern Ireland yet a little further into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. He had no rational argument against bringing our membership in this House to a realistic level. The reason is simple. The hon. Gentleman is a Republican. He does not espouse the British cause, and if at all possible he will guide the people of Northern Ireland away from a deeper involvement in the British way of life. That simple but important fact must be recognised by Her Majesty's Government. I urge them to listen to what the hon. Gentleman said about a devolved Administration and about his detestation of an upper tier of local government. I ask them to balance those matters against his illogical comments to the effect that devolved government is all very well for Scotland and Wales but not for Northern Ireland on an agreed British principle, They should balance what the hon. Gentleman said in one part of his speech against his remarks about not pursuing proper representation in this House.
I hope that when we return to this House in a year's time there will be a marked change of attitude to the constitutional issues of Northern Ireland by Her Majesty's Government and also a realistic approach to the security problems in the Province.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House the winding-up speeches will begin in 40 minutes. There are three hon. Members who still wish to take part in the debate, and this part of the debate will finish at 11.30.
Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was under the evidently mistaken impression that under Standing Order No. 9 the period of three hours would be added to what otherwise would have been the time for the termination of the debate. I apologise for my ignorance.
Mr. Speaker: It is not often that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when it comes to parliamentary business, but, unless I am given urgent advice in the next few minutes, I believe that I was right in what I said. May I appeal to the first two hon. Members whom I shall call to be brief in order to make it possible for the House to hear the third hon. Member who wishes to contribute.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said about the security forces. I should like to express my sympathy with the relatives of the two young soldiers who were so brutally murdered last night. They certainly died defending the rights of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland against the criminals who murder and mutilate.
It is essential that everyone in the Province should support the forces of law and order, and the SDLP cannot pick and choose the occasions when it will support the RUC. The SDLP must come out emphatically in support of the police. Of course, on occasions some policemen will go wrong and some soldiers will behave in a way that they should not, but that happens in every army and police force in the world. However, it does not stop the people of a country giving the police their full support, knowing that the courts will deal heavily with those who go astray.
I wish to confine my remarks to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1977. I cannot support the order and I shall seek to divide the House on it. We are engaged in a political charade—nothing more and
694
nothing less. By taking part in this debate we are encouraging the deception that all this means something worth while for the Ulster people. I wish that the Ulster people could sit here and listen to this debate. They would see how few Members are here and compare the cosy, complacent attitude and atmosphere here with the terror which exists in the Province.
I wish briefly to expose the hypocrisy of those who, by paying lip service to the principle of devolved government in Northern Ireland, are, in fact, conniving at making direct rule permanent. They want what they call an improved form of direct rule through an Assembly of limited powers. I not only object to such a device, whatever it is called—a third tier of local government, an administrative assembly or a council—but I should be ashamed to offer it to the Ulster people who have suffered so much during the last eight years and who now have nothing but a restricted form of democracy.
Ulster and the Irish people as a whole have been deceived before. I have in my study at home a large picture of Grattan addressing the Irish Assembly and pleading with that last Irish Parliament nearly two centuries ago not to destroy their own devolved Government and Parliament for English honours and money. The debate was like the debate today —basically about democracy and freedom. Those who were deeply concerned about poverty, social conditions, commerce, agriculture and the advancement of the community of Ireland lost out. Their arguments were overwhelmed by those who were more concerned about languishing in an English Parliament than labouring on behalf of the ordinary people of Ireland, most of whom lived in penury.
Today, the people of Northern Ireland are being treated with scant regard. Ulster remains the poorest part of the United Kingdom—in spite of fine promises from successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, to bring Ulster's standards up to the national level. Instead we have lower wages, higher food prices, greater unemployment and heavier mortgage repayments than the rest of the United Kingdom. Clearly, Ulster would gain from looking after its own affairs through a devolved

695
Parliament. The will of the people, as expressed in the Convention, was spurned by the very Government who set up the Convention. In spite of the last eight years of terrorism, the Government have not advanced one inch in their thinking about the Northern Ireland situation.
It is illuminating that on a matter which may seem minor, but which is of great importance to the farmers of Northern Ireland, for some spurious reason the Government will not introduce the urgently-needed dog control order ahead of the Great Britain legislation. There have been complaints that Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom in some legislation, but here we want to go ahead, as in other matters such as family law reform, and the Government are dragging their feet. I hope that they will change their mind and that the Minister will announce that later.
The Government are as intransigent as ever over compulsory power-sharing. The plain political fact is that there is no chance of such an arrangement of political incompatibles ever succeeding in Northern Ireland. It would certainly succeed nowhere else, but this Government, like: the Conservative Government who destroyed the Stormont Parliament, will try every political device to avoid the sensible democratic course of establishing a devolved Government and Parliament at Stormont in accordance with the British democratic system and the wishes of the Ulster people in election after election.
Ulster wants a Parliament at Stormont. We should welcome equality of treatment in regard to the number of representatives from Northern Ireland in this House, but no increase in the number of hon. Members from Ulster will silence demands for a restored Stormont Parliament.
In 1972 I supported briefly the idea of total integration because I thought that it would help Northern Ireland. Within five months I had changed my mind, and I am totally convinced that we must have a devolved Government and Parliament. It is no use the Government offering a third tier of local government or an administrative Assembly with no legislative power.
I cannot see why we cannot have a devolved Government and Parliament.
696
Some time ago I moved a motion here urging the Government to introduce a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom. The Government rejected my demand and, in order to prevent the matter becoming a political football, I withdrew the motion, saying that I would return to the subject.
People have nothing to fear from such a Bill of Rights and they have much to gain. I should be prepared to restrict such a Bill of Rights to Northern Ireland alone if this House is concerned that the application of the ordinary system of British democracy in Northern Ireland would not be perfect. Of course it would be perfect, but a Bill of Rights should satisfy the House that the rights of people would be equally and impartially upheld.
Under direct rule, we have rampant bureaucracy that is cramping initiative and making life difficult for our people. Those who bring problems to me are annoyed that many officials treat them indifferently and sometimes contemptuously. Despite the anger that I rarely display, I sometimes find it difficult to get some departments and bureaucrats to act fairly on behalf of the people of the Province. If we ended direct rule and had a devolved Parliament and Government at Stormont the people would grasp the opportunity to come together and go forward as one body.
Whatever else has happened, we have moved on many years since the outbreak of terrorism. The centre of power is now more at Strasbourg than at Westminster. Northern Ireland is prepared to play its part in Europe. It has much to offer the people of Great Britain and the EEC. The working people of Ulster are ready to play their part.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: At this late hour I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) into the constitutional and economic issues that he raised and which were dealt with earlier in the debate in powerful speeches by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I wish to confine myself to security issues.
I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said. He has adopted many of the security ideas that we have urged

697
upon him. They have had a measure of success in recent months. I am particularly glad that the number of full-time UDR men has been increased substantially. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that the time has come to look yet again at whether the TAVR units in Northern Ireland should play a more active role in the security of the Province.
I also welcome the formation of the nucleus of a Fraud Squad. It is long overdue. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) recently told us an astonishing story of the thefts at the Royal Victoria Hospital. We know that this is the tip of the iceberg and that millions of pounds are misappropriated by the Mafia wings of the terrorist organisations. It is important to silence the Godfathers of crime, but it is equally necessary to eliminate the Goldfingers of crime.
I was surprised, therefore, to receive an uncharacteristically surly reply from the Under-Secretary of State when I asked him
"how many people have been arrested in the past 12 months for extortion, the demanding of protection money, the running of illegal drinking clubs and other fraudulent crimes related to terrorism?"
I was told
"This information is not readily available and such a time-consuming exercise would not be justified, particularly at this time. I am satisfied, however, that within their resources the police are doing everything possible to eliminate all these activities."— [Official Report, 12th May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 557–8.]
That reply suggested to me that success on this front was very limited indeed and that the figures, if they could have been assembled, would present a pretty sorry story. I am elad that more action is to be taken.
It is worth recalling that the most notorious gangster in Chicago in the 1930s, Al Capone, was never arrested for the many serious crimes that he ordered to be committed but was finally put behind bars for income tax frauds. This may well be the way to deal with some of our present Godfathers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has rightly pointed out, at present the success of our security operations in
698
Northern Ireland, despite the build-up of the indigenous security forces, depends to a substantial degree upon the continuing high morale of the British soldiers there.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) earlier cited, naturally enough, a number of cases spread over many years in which he thought that British soldiers have misbehaved. I am sure that there have been cases in which British soldiers have misbehaved. But I am sure that over the past seven years the British Army in Northern Ireland has been less trigger-happy than any force of its kind in history. In the debate on the Army, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, who has attended much of our debate this evening, announced that there was to be a special inquiry into pay and conditions in Northern Ireland. Concessions have been made, as we suggested, on the charges for rent and food for those doing long-term tours in the Province. But is this the end of the inquiry? I hope not, because there is still a great deal of work to be done.
We know that many men going to Northern Ireland on emergency tours suffer considerable financial loss. I have suggested in earlier debates some of the ways in which this could be put right. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it plain that she thinks that no soldier serving in Northern Ireland should suffer financially as a result of that tour of duty. I hope that the whole House can accept this point of view. I hope that this evening we can be told that this inquiry that the Under-Secretary started is still under way and that we can expect further action from the Government soon.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: As someone who is not an Ulster Member of Parliament I rise with some apprehension in a Northern Ireland debate, because there are so few of these debates that I think that Ulster Members have a considerable right to be heard on behalf of their constituents. There are a few points that I should like to raise which have come out of the debate. I listened carefully to the speech of the Secretary of State and I welcomed, as, I think, did the majority of hon. Members, his announcements about the lower figures of deaths and other "successes" by terrorists. I was unable to understand

699
the reasons for his secrecy about the new application of the SAS and the new posting of units to Northern Ireland.
We cannot be happy about the terrorist situation until the climate of the Six Counties is such that someone who witnesses a crime can go to the authorities and say "That is the person who committed it". The more publicity that is given to the new forces that we have, to the new units of the SAS and other security forces that we provide for Northern Ireland, the safer it will be for people to do just that. I hope that the Secretary of State will carefully consider whether it is not against the public interest to be so secretive about the forces that we now have and did not have before. I believe that such publicity would not only encourage people to go to the police with information but might deter those who finance the terrorists, whether from the South of Ireland, the United States or elsewhere, because no one, however easily he acquired his fortunes, will give money if the purpose is likely to fail.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilifedder) complained of Northern Irish legislation being behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom. He could not have listened with care to the Secretary of State's speech. We should welcome the moves the right hon. Gentleman has announced, particularly the £18-a-week plan for youth employment for 6,000 youths, because there the Northern Irish legislation is ahead of that for the United Kingdom. I dearly wish that in my constituency there were such a plan, because we have appalling unemployment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned divorce, civil rights and homosexuality. He is absolutely right. There is clearly a great deal to be caught up, but in all fairness we must welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
The Secretary of State said that direct rule was not our preferred method, and the whole House echoes that. But we are debating the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) and the Interim Period Extension Orders, and it is to those that I wish to come as my last point. We have heard that a Speaker's Conference will be convened to look into the question of Northern Irish representation. It seems to me that all parts of the House are agreed
700
about the appalling under-representation of the people of Northern Ireland. Whereas that was absolutely right when Stormont existed and the Northern Irish had their own Government, as it were, it must be totally wrong in the context of today's politics.
If we look at "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" published after the February 1974 election, we see, for instance, that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) represents an electorate of 118,000.
Mr. Molyneaux: It is more now.
Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman had a majority of 35,644 and the man whom he beat so decisively had nearly 500 more votes than the then right hon. Gentleman who won Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who received 12,182 votes from an electorate of 25,000. If ever there were an argument for accelerating a Speaker's Conference, surely this is it.
It seems quite astonishing to me that the leaders of the political parties in this House should have been consulted by the Prime Minister, a right hon. Gentleman who has every Christian virtue with the possible exception of resignation, and that everyone should have agreed that there has to be a Speaker's Conference but that we should not know when it is to be. The idea of the conference is presumably to increase the number of Members of Parliament representing the people of the Six Counties at Westminster.
Since we are here to discuss the continuation of emergency provisions, we should think very carefully whether we should agree to extend them for another year unless the conference in your name, Mr. Speaker, is to be held in the immediate future. It seems to be agreed in all parts of the House that it should be held immediately, and the results of it are not in any way in dispute. There seems to be no political party that would not like the people of Ulster more constructively, more properly and more equitably represented in this House.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. John Carson: Like many of my colleagues and other hon. Members, I should like to welcome some of the initiatives announced by the

701
Secretary of State tonight. I was, however, rather angry when he spoke of the RUC and of the manner in which it behaved in May this year during the Loyalist so-called strike. The Secretary of State seemed to be saying that this was the only time when the RUC acted impartially. I should like to put on record the fact that for eight long years, while it has been kicked about by politicians and former Governments, and while it is being used by the SDLP as a bargaining factor in some sort of settlement, the RUC has acted impartially, and it was acting impartially long before the Secretary of State even knew where Northern Ireland was.
The RUC gets a special allowance for hardship amounting to 50p per day. I want that increased to £1. Lord Melchett is touring Northern Ireland saying that his resources for assisting community groups are unlimited. But the policemen —and their families—who live in the Province for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year are exposed to the threat and terror of assassination by the IRA but are limited in this allowance to 50p a day.
I support the Army 100 per cent. and would support it more if that were possible. The soldiers, however, have one comfort. When their duty is finished, they can go behind guarded doors with sentries to protect them. The police do not have that security. The Government should urgently consider increasing the hardship allowance to £1 a day.
I give credit to the Secretary of State for the initiative he has taken on the improvement of security. It is much to the liking of those who represent Northern Ireland and the people living there that there has been a step-up in security. It is now at its best since I came here, but I am not satisfied and I shall not be until I see the terrorists rooted out of Northern Ireland for all time.
The Secretary of State has said that there are to be 11 full-time companies of the UDR. We welcome that as an addition to the back-up forces for the RUC promised by the Secretary of State. While it is possible, perhaps, to draw back the Regular Army, it is essential that the part-time force should be able to back
702
the RUC at all times and in all places in Northern Ireland.
I should like the Secretary of State to tell us now about the areas where the UDR cannot operate, in my constituency and in other parts of Belfast, and why the UDR is not permitted to back up the RUC in areas where the Army is being drawn back and the police are not getting full backing. I am grateful to the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army for the concern and interest he has shown about the UDR and the British Army. The UDR, like the British Army, should be operating in all areas whether green or orange. It does not matter so long as full support is given to the RUC.
The Minister mentioned that £4 million is being spent on police buildings. I should like him to tell us where that £4 million is being spent, because we have Dungannon RUC station where work was started a long time ago but the steelwork is now rusting away because the IRA has threatened those working on it with their lives. Their lives are in danger, so I suppose that that is not part of the £4 million. We also have Lurgan Police Station, and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has said that the workers cannot work there because of intimidation by the IRA.
We sit here and realise that the Government are bending their knee to the intimidation of the IRA. We cannot build Dungannon and Lurgan Police Stations because of intimidation by the IRA. If the Government are prepared to implement law and order in other parts and to back up the police with the Army and the UDR, they should bring the right people to build Dungannon and Lurgan Police Stations which are long overdue.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) mentioned various complaints against the RUC. I gave a promise to finish shortly, so I have not the time to go into this but I would remind the hon. Member that there is a complaints department with, a superintendent, a chief inspector and other members of the RUC. That is a competent and effective department of the RUC. I have been told in an interview with the Chief Constable of the RUC that, of all the complaints made against the RUC which have been investigated, few have been substantiated over the past 12 months.

703
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to release members of the RUC doing duty outside ex-politicians' houses. That was long overdue. Men so vital in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland were engaged in protecting men who have been members of the Northern Ireland Government or who have been acting in a legal capacity in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the Secretary of State, in agreement with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, should release the RUC members who look after the courthouses and the police stations at fixed points so that they might take up other duties. There are about 600 policemen involved in those operations. If they were replaced by the British Army and members of the full-time UDR, it would give the Secretary of State—and I am sure that he would be pleased to have them—600 more policemen to fight against terrorists in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the hon. Member whom I am about to call, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), to bear in mind that it is agreed that in five minutes the winding-up speeches should begin. I am sorry to ask a Methodist local preacher to take only five minutes, but it would be helpful.
11.6 p.m.
Mr. John Dunlop: I shall not indulge as a Methodist local preacher, Mr. Speaker. I give you my word that I shall give the Minister his due time to reply.
I deprecate the bitter and vicious attack of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) once again on the security forces. This seems to be his bi-annual treat. We are treated to the same attack time after time. Once again he had to mention the 50 years of Unionist government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentlemen's speeches have become just like an old "78" record with the needle stuck somewhere in the middle. I fear that very soon he will begin to believe the things that he says in this place.
The Secretary of State talked about the acquisition of vehicles for the police and the security forces. Did he think that it was a good thing to send in the three policemen who were recently murdered in my area, near to one of the most
704
notorious IRA strongholds in the whole of Ireland, in an ordinary car with no protection? Their car had no protection, not even bullet-proof glass. They were sent into an area that is notorious for attacks on the security forces. It is infested with IRA personnel. Who sent them there without standard military cover? The Army should have been there too.
I do not want to indulge in a euphoria of emotion, but I stood in the homes of the victims of the attack. It was a traumatic experience to meet both a widowed mother and the widow of a full-time policeman—there were six in the family —whose husband was gunned down like a dog. Surely something should be done. No members of the security forces should be required to go into such an area anywhere in the North of Ireland without the protection of weapons, vehicles and the Army, which is expected to give the necessary cover.
I mention briefly the murder of the two soldiers. What sort of vehicle were they using? How was it that one sniper could shoot down the two of them and seriously wound a padre in a matter of seconds? What sort of vehicle were they using to go into an area of the Falls Road? It is certainly no picnic for any of the security forces to go to such an area. Surely there was some slip-up in that operation.
The Secretary of State mentioned guns that are being supplied to the RUC —namely, Ml carbines. I was told by a senior Army officer that some of the guns were defective. Indeed, that has been admitted. He also said that there was no ammunition for the weapons and that all that the police had was the ammunition that was captured or acquired from the IRA. I received that information from a senior Army officer. I cannot give his name although I know that I am likely to be asked for particulars. He told me that if I mentioned his name the best thing that he could do would be to fly out of Northern Ireland and keep going strong.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the two points that I have made—protection for the security forces in respect of vehicles, arms and Army cover and suitable weapons for the police to reply against the IRA with its sophisticated and modern weapons that are directed against the security forces.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) for his forbearance and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for his gracious words about the constructive criticism offered from time to time by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and myself, to the benefit of Ulster.
The Secretary of State gave an encouraging but not complacent report. There is nothing to be complacent about. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) observed, there can be no rejoicing about Ulster's condition of constitutional limbo. To him and to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I repeat what was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon— namely, that increased representation at Westminster has long been Conservative Party policy, and we are glad to learn from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) that it is also Liberal Party policy, but that this is no substitute for a constitutional settlement. We can take no satisfaction from the regrettable necessity of again renewing emergency powers. Tomorrow we shall return to the economic plight and prospects in Northern Ireland and take up the secondary education controversy. I shall devote my remarks tonight to the security aspect of the debate.
By its successes against the terrorist gangsters and protection racketeers— I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said about the importance of the Fraud Squad— including those who defile the title "Loyalist", and by its energetic protection of workers during the strike, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has proved itself efficient, devoted and impartial and entitled to the thanks of all who profess to uphold the law.
I welcome the praise by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for the new, young Royal Ulster Constabulary; but no one should use allegations of police brutality, which are now properly investigated, subject to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an impartial officer, as an excuse for withholding support from a force to which people owe their very survival.
706
The Chief Constable, in that important article in the Belfast Telegraph of 24th June, said:
"It is the object of all terrorist organisations to discredit and destroy the police, and in Northern Ireland that objective is pursued ruthlessly. If the terrorists can neutralise the police, the community is theirs".
He also ventured the opinion that police officers had lost their lives because of allegations unfairly made against members of the force.
We have the Chief Constable's assurance that any police officer found to have ill-treated anyone would receive no mercy, that such conduct was illegal and "extraordinarily stupid and despicable", because it would bring the force into disrepute and put back its efforts to provide a wholly acceptable police service for all Northern Ireland people.
As the role and responsibility of the RUC increase, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) emphasised, it must be provided promptly with the weapons, vehicles and equipment that it needs.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) mentioned the lack of urgency in building new police stations. I shall not rehearse that unsatisfactory Adjournment debate initiated on 22nd April by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) on the tale of the Lur-gan Barracks—a tale of prevarication and procrastination. When will the new police stations at Limavady and Dun-gannon, started in 1974, be opened for business? I do not necessarily ask the Minister to reply to that question now.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury concentrated our thoughts, if there were any need to do so, on the young light infantrymen who were ambushed and murdered in Belfast. One always lacks words with which to praise the Armed Forces. Surely it is a matter of honour that they should be fairly remunerated. I know that the Secretary of State, who was formerly at the Ministry of Defence, will have heeded the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on that matter.
I was glad that the Secretary of State expressed admiration of Her Majesty's Prison Service in Northern Ireland. Another officer of that service was

707
murdered only last week. The Prison Service requires courage of a different order from that expected of the security forces but of a high order. It has dealt very well with the problems arising from the ending of special category status. Its members deserve our thanks.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) mentioned Southern Irish politicians. There is no border to terrorism. Her Majesty's Government will have to work with a different Government in Dublin. We would give a farewell salute to Liam Cosgrave, who, like his father before him, gave his country firm and responsible leadership. Conor Cruise O'Brien lost an election but has won a place in Irish history by his courage and clear speaking. In his lecture at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, on 6th May, Mr. O'Brien said:
"Many Northern Unionists, and many people in Britain too, think the IRA want Northern Ireland to be handed over to the Dublin Government. But that is not at all what the IRA want, either formally or substantially. For them the Dublin Government is a vassal Government of England and the Dublin Parliament a vassal Parliament."
For the IRA no Irish Government, no Government in Ireland, is legitimate which does not stand in the apostolic succession from that proclaimed at Easter 1916. The corollary of "Brits Out" is "Lynch Out". The only political solution satisfactory to the Provos would entail the overthrow of constitutional government in Dublin.
Mr. Ruairi O'Bradaigh understands that Provisional Sinn Fein can expect no favours from the Fianna Fail Administration. He said at a Press conference in Dublin on 21st June:
"Before Fianna Fail went out of office it had closed down our offices in Dublin and banned us from RTE."
That is more than the BBC did.
"Fianna Fail set up the Special Criminal Court and brought in the Offences against the State Act to use against Republicans."
There are reasons of interest and of precedent why the new Government in Dublin should prosecute with increasing vigour the struggle against the tyranny of terror. If there be an "Irish dimension" to the question of Ulster, let it be that of a united front in the defence of democracy against a murderous clique rejected by the people throughout the whole island of Ireland.
11.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): At this time of night, and on Northern Ireland occasions, some of us have still quite a journey to go for the rest of the evening. At this stage, however, I should like to thank hon. Members for the generous manner in which the debate has been conducted. I have lost count of the number of these debates that I have now attended, but apart from one or two small occasions I think that this has been the most good-mannered and good-tempered renewal debate I have attended.
Renewal debates are bound to get back to the question of security when we are talking about Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend explained that we certainly have no complacency on that issue. He explained the efforts and the policy that he is pursuing on this front, and it is gratifying to us to hear the words of praise for all the security forces—and I mean all the security forces—in Northern Ireland.
It was also gratifying to hear the expressions of sympathy for the relatives of the two young soldiers so brutally shot down the other evening on what can only have been their second day in Northern Ireland. After eight years one can hardly understand the mentality of people who can do acts such as this and think that this is one of the ways in which they will pursue their political ambitions. They have long lost any chance of saying that they are pursuing political ambitions of their own.
While I do not wish to go over the statistics, I have the responsibility of keeping up with the successes of the Army and police by keeping one step ahead in regard to prison accommodation. The problem of prison accommodation in Northern Ireland, as I have said before, has taken on gigantic proportions. In 1968 there were 700 prisoners in custody in Northern Ireland. We now have nearly 2,800.
We are concerned not only with the number of prisoners but with the makeup. At the end of May 1,402 prisoners were serving sentences for serious crimes such as murder, attempted murder, explosives and firearms offences and robbery. A total of 219 were serving life sentences, mainly for murder. The remaining 1,183 were serving sentences totalling 10,371 years, or an average of

709
8·8 years apiece. That is the dimension in which we are working within the prison system in Northern Ireland. No one talks about the success of the security forces in bringing these criminals to justice.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and by almost every other hon. Member who spoke, about equipment for the RUC and about the charges arising from the attempted UUAC stoppage. My right hon. Friend has made clear the importance that we attach to providing the RUC with the equipment that it needs to protect itself and the community from terrorist attack. Equipment needs are regularly reviewed by the Chief Constable and the Police Authority and we work closely together to ensure that any necessary items of equipment are provided with the minimum of delay.
One has heard of the request for Ml carbines. I would tell the hon. Member for Abingdon that the police have other weapons at their disposal and that there is plenty of ammunition. However, nearly 500 policemen have already been trained on this weapon and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have been using live rounds.
Mr. Carson: Will the Minister comment on the Chief Constable's remarks in the Press recently that he was dissatisfied with the delivery of weapons and vehicles to the RUC to help it to combat terrorism?
Mr. Concannon: Of course he is as disappointed as we are. It is one thing wanting the vehicles and the Ml carbines but another thing getting them delivered as quickly as we can. However, steps are being taken to deliver these as quickly as we can. There have been difficulties. We are not trying to hide those difficulties. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working on this point.
With regard to the Ml carbines, I do not think that the hon. Member for Abingdon would want me to go into detail on our security measures. I think that we perhaps give away a little too much information when we discuss security measures in this House. I therefore do not think that the hon.
710
Gentleman would wish me to go into detail about the weapons that are in the hands of the RUC.
I turn to charges arising from the UUAC strike. As at 21st June, 32 people had been charged as a result of the strike under Section 1 of the Protection of Property and Persons Act (Northern Ireland), which creates an offence with regard to intimidation. Nine people are remanded in custody. Altogether 113 charges have been preferred for offences of various descriptions arising out of the strike, and it falls to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether prosecutions should be instituted.
I was also asked about the Economic Council. It is no surprise that there has been frustration in this regard. My right hon. Friend and the rest of my colleagues in Northern Ireland have felt some frustration because the stoppage came in the middle of this and caused us to divert our attention elsewhere. But things are now moving, and we expect that they will move fairly rapidly from now on. We are satisfied that the Council will soon be working and looking into the economic affairs of Northern Ireland.
I was gratified to hear hon. Members speaking about the efforts which have been made with regard to the Northern Ireland economy. This has been an effort directed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Not only have we doubled our overseas trade missions, but I myself have participated in missions and have found great interest in America and elsewhere where benefits can accrue to Northern Ireland. This means that we have also taken on a vast visiting arrangement to the main cities in Great Britain, and we are pursuing this with the help of the Northern Ireland Office and the Ulster Office in London. It is gratifying to us to know that note has been taken of this.
Let me again offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for the disturbance about airport security. I do not know what more I can say to him. We seem to have been running together on this one for some time. Every time that I go by there, I look to see whether it is in order and working. It always seems to be. I do not know what else I can do, apart from going with the hon. Gentleman to

711
make sure that it operates all right when he wants to go through. Perhaps he will let me know when he is proposing to go through so that I can be there to see it.
Reference has been made to the Speaker's Conference. A number of hon. Members asked why there had been a hold-up of the Speaker's Conference on Westminster representation for Northern Ireland. Now that all the party leaders have agreed the principles, we are seeking agreement on terms of reference. This should be forthcoming quite soon. The next step is to settle membership. This will be done without delay through the usual channels. My right hon. Friend is anxious to proceed as quickly as possible on this.
Mr. Freud: Will not the hon. Gentie-man accept that the terms of reference have been agreed?
Mr. Powell: They have.
Mr. Concaranon: The principles have been agreed. The actual terms of reference have not yet been finalised. I am not suggesting that this will hold up matters for any length of time. We want to get on with this without delay. The usual channels will be operating as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend is anxious that we move on this as quickly as possible.
We have had a number of references to direct rule and the improvements referred to by my right hon. Friend. I single out one improvement to put this matter in perspective. Special mention was made of one particular order. That shows what can be done, if good will is displayed by all sides, to make the direct rule system effective and responsive.
Tomorrow, the House will debate the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Order. That order was originally published as a proposal in January of this year. As is now normal practice, there followed a consultative period during which any interested party could comment. The proposal was considered in the Northern Ireland Committee during a lengthy debate. Many useful suggestions were made. As a result, my right hon. Friend has changed the original proposed draft in several important respects.
I have little doubt that the House will agree that the procedure for debating
712
proposals in the Northern Ireland Committee fulfilled a valuable function in the case of compensation for criminal injuries. Last week the Committee also considered the proposals for a draft order for compensation for damage to property. Again, there was a useful debate. I attended those debates in the Northern Ireland Committee, and I think that all concerned found them very valuable. We shall continue to do everything possible to respond to suggestions made in that Committee.
Unfortunately time is running out, and there are still a number of important matters outstanding with which I have not dealt. I wanted to comment on the position at the Royal Victoria Hospital, for example. But I undertake that on some of the major points which remain unanswered I shall communicate directly with the hon. Members concerned.
This has been a useful debate. This, again, is one of the renewal orders. I should like to see the time come when we do not need these orders. That time is not yet, unfortunately. Meanwhile, i commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (GOVERNMENT)
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Concannon.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read
11.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 creates an offence of belonging to or soliciting support for a proscribed organisation.

713
Since that time it has proved an essential weapon in our continuing fight against terrorism. The offence carries maximum penalties on summary conviction of six months' imprisonment or a fine of £400 or both, and on indictment five years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
In the debate on the renewal of the emergency provisions legislation in July last year, my right, hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that there was a case for increasing the maximum penalty for membership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertook in the House on 17th December 1976 that we would bring this forward when a suitable legislative opportunity occurred. We believe that as part of our continuing drive against terrorism the time has come to carry out that undertaking.
The Bill before us today increases the maximum penalty for membership of a proscribed organisation. In considering this change, however, we were conscious that a similar maximum penalty applied in particular to two other offences under the emergency provisions legislation. Section 20 of the 1973 Act deals with the unlawful collection of information with respect to the police or Her Majesty's Forces which is of such a nature as is likely to be useful to terrorists; and Section 15 of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Act 1975 creates an offence of unlawful training in the use of firearms and explosives.
We believe that it is illogical that a man of whom it can be proved only that he was a member of a proscribed organisation should be liable to a higher penalty than another who has demonstrated some active involvement in terrorism. We have therefore decided to increase the maximum penalty for all three offences from five to 10 years' imprisonment. This is the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill, and Clause 1(3) makes it clear that these penalties are not retrospective.
I emphasise that the Bill deals only with the maximum penalty for these three offences. The discretion of the courts to impose such lesser penalties as they see fit in the circumstances of individual cases will not be affected. In 1976, 31 persons were charged and convicted in Northern Ireland for the sole offence of membership of a proscribed organisation. In 16 cases a non-custodial
714
sentence was imposed. Four persons were sentenced to borstal training and 11 received sentences of imprisonment: in 10 of these cases the sentences ranged from three to five years' imprisonment. The comparable figures for the first three months of 1977 alone were 21 convictions solely for membership; three noncustodial sentences, two directions for borstal training and 16 sentences of imprisonment, of which six were for periods of between three and five years. Clearly the courts recognise, as I believe the House does, the difference between the misguided youth who had just become involved in this illegal activity and the dyed-in-the-wool and long-term organiser or instigator of terrorism. It is these latter against whom the Bill is directed.
Prosecutions are brought less frequently in respect of the other offences. But they are brought and have so been this year, and they have attracted substantial custodial penalties.
I should like at this stage to refer briefly to three other changes which we propose to make to the permanent criminal law. First of all, we propose to increase the penalties for conspiracy to murder and for soliciting any person to commit murder provided under Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 from 10 years to life imprisonment. The penalty for the offences of attempting to cause an explosion or keeping explosives with intent under the Explosives Substances Act 1886 will be increased from 20 years to life imprisonment. Finally, we shall be introducing new offences in respect of the pernicious and persistent problem of hoax bombs, which not only cause fear and distress to large sections of the public but also waste the valuable time of the security forces. These changes will be effected by an Order in Council which will come into force during the summer.
It is sometimes suggested that these provisions should have been included in the Bill that is now before us. The central point is that they deal with questions of public order. They will certainly be of use in the fight against terrorism, but they are amendments to the general criminal law of Northern Ireland: they will remain on the statute book when the need for emergency provisions legislation no longer exists. They are not therefore appropriate for a Bill solely designed

715
to make changes in three penalties under that emergency legislation.
We are making no distinction in terms of urgency. I can assure the House that we intend that the Order in Council should come into operation in about six weeks or so—in other words, in a very similar time scale to the provisions of this Bill.
I should also mention in this context that a Bill to consolidate the existing emergency provisions has recently been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Measures. This has been prepared by the Law Commission as part of its continuing process of consolidation of the law. It is a consolidation of the provisions of three statutes and several Statutory Instruments, and makes no changes in the law or in the requirements for renewal. However, it spells out the rights and liabilities of the individual and the powers and responsibilities of the security forces in a more simple and understandable form. This will in itself be valuable.
To revert to the present Bill, and to sum up, the amendment we are now proposing to the emergency provisions legislation will be a small but none the less significant and useful addition to our powers against terrorism. We all look forward to the day when emergency provisions legislation for Northern Ireland no longer features on the statute book, but until then it is our clear duty to ensure that society is fully armed against those who believe that they have a right to impose their will by force and brutality upon their fellow citizens.
I commend this short but important Bill to the House.
11.39 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: We welcome the Bill and we shall not oppose it in any of its stages. We were anxious that the Secretary of State should impress on the people of Northern Ireland his determination to implement his new anti-terrorist measures and to impose heavier sentences without delay. This Bill is welcome evidence of the political determination behind these new measures.
The right hon. Gentleman in a speech on 8th June said that these further increases in sentences would be a useful addition to the armoury required by the
716
Government to defeat terrorism. However, the Secretary of State said that the further increases of penalties for offences which the Minister has just defined as ones involving conspiracy to murder and involving explosive substances and hoax bombs would not take effect until next year. The Minister will know that representations have been made to the Secretary of State from this side. We were therefore glad to hear that the Criminal Justice Order in Council will be made and will take effect in about six weeks' time; I believe that that was the time the Minister mentioned. He explained that that matter was not appropriate to this Bill; and that is satisfactory. However, will the Minister indicate whether the Order in Council may be considered by the House, and, if so, when?
11.41 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As one who has advocated increasing the strength of the deterrents against organised crime, intimidation, racketeering and hard-line terrorism, I can do no other than give my whole-hearted support to the Bill. It is undeniable that many young people became involved in organisations which, in the early days at least, gave the police some problems. However, what has now become clear to many members of these proscribed organisations, particularly in the aftermath of the attempted strike and disruption, is the real nature of the bodies with which they had become involved. There are encouraging signs that many of these young people are now trying to escape from the clutches of the evil men who, up to now, have managed to control them. The influence of such evil men will be greatly weakened by the increased penalties that are provided for in the Bill. It will persuade many of those who are uncertain and who may be on the brink to extract themselves from what for them have become abhorrent and intolerable involvements.
We welcome the Minister's indication that he intends to increase penalties for certain other offences by means of the Criminal Justice Order in Council and his assertion that this can be done under the urgency procedures so that they may come into effect during this summer. We shall also give our support to those measures and we shall encourage the Government to act swiftly in the future

717
on any occasion when such action is desirable.
11.42 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to put to the Minister of State one point about the increased penalties which, as he mentioned in his speech, are rightly to be permanent and which are to be made in the Criminal Justice Order in Council. The Minister said that they would be made under the urgency procedure, and to that we have no objection. Orders made under that procedure still have to come before the House, like any other draft orders, for approval. The difference is that in the case of the urgency procedure no proposals are made or considered preceding the draft.
In respect of two of the three matters, the increases in the penalties for offences already defined in the law, there is no particular problem. However, in the third case the new order will, I understand, create and define a new offence as well as fix the penalty. Incidentally, the Minister did not mention what the penally would be. In those circumstances, it is obviously intolerable that the House and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and who have a responsibility for the law— and this is to be permanent law in Northern Ireland—should simply be presented with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition—it will, in fact, mean "take it" in the final form.
I therefore suggest to the Minister—I do not think that there is any impropriety in this—that he might be willing to circulate to those who are interested, to the Opposition and other interested hon. Members as well as all Northern Ireland Members, the proposed text of such an order, so that we can direct our minds to it and so that any suggestions which may occur to us can be made in time to be incorporated into the draft order.
I am sure that the Minister of State would be the last to deny that sometimes those who are not learned in the law or are not professional draftsmen can nevertheless draw attention to defects in definition or drafting. As we are envisaging the creation of a new offence, I am sure that there would be no harm in
718
hon. Members who take an interest in these matters having a view of the proposed wording in advance. I do not expect the Minister to say "Yes" or "No" tonight, but I should be grateful if he and the Secretary of State could consider my suggestion—which could also apply to future orders made under the urgency procedure.
There is no question of anyone wishing to delay or challenge the appropriateness of the procedure but simply a desire that when new law, which is to be permanent in Northern Ireland, is being made every opportunity should be taken to get it as near perfect as possible.
11.46 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: I rise on a similar point to that just made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I am not sure how to describe tonight's performance in the House. It cannot be "Musical chairs" because we do not swap places, and it cannot be "Switch the hat" because we do not wear hats, but the Minister has spoken to us as a member of the United Kingdom Government rather than as a member of the Northern Ireland Government, and when he comes, as a member of the United Kingdom Government dealing with a matter over which this Parliament has jurisdiction, he should deal with it in the way that this Parliament normally deals with such business.
I welcome the proposals because they are in the form of a Bill. Fortunately these measures do not require much consideration, but if an hon. Member had felt the need to improve them he would have had the opportunity to do so. What bothers me is that we are going to make far-reaching changes in the permanent criminal law of Northern Ireland by Order in Council. I do not dispute the need for such action, but I do not see the jusification for adopting this process.
If there is an overriding matter of urgency, the Minister could come to the House, as he has done tonight, with a Bill and we could, if necessary, take all the stages in one sitting. I am opposed to legislation by Orders in Council. I know that some hon. Members take satisfaction from the way that the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order that we are to debate tomorrow has been handled, but I find it abhorrent and unsatisfactory.

719
We all welcome the Bill. The case for increasing the sentences has been made. Can the Minister expand on the figures that he gave us and say how many prosecutions have taken place solely in respect of membership of an illegal organisation? Often this charge is preferred with others, and I have long suspected that not enough use is being made of the legislation. We have good memories in Northern Ireland and I remember the great controversy over the whereabouts of Seamus Twomey. Of course, he was around all the time. He was not acting as a Scarlet Pimpernel; his presence was well advertised, but the authorities said that he was not there. When they admitted that he was there, they said that they had no legislation to bring him into custody.
There is not much point in increasing the sentences if the law is not enforced. The Minister should tell us that he is satisfied that the law will be enforced and that the reason why it has not been enforced in the past is not a deficiency in the law but a matter of policy.
Mr. Wm. Ross: My right hon. Friend will be aware that more recently another well-known member of the IRA, Martin McGuinness, was picked up by the security forces, held for some time and released with no charges brought against him.
Mr. Craig: My hon. Friend is correct. If he walked around the streets of the city tomorrow he would find McGuinness without any difficulty. I could introduce the Minister to some brigade officers of the IRA. We shall judge the Government on their performance.
There should and could have been more in the Bill. We have few opportunities to take action. We talked earlier about matters that should have been considered but which have never been considered. What about the Gardiner Report? That was one of the most useful reports ever prepared by a commission on behalf of a Government. The report made recommendations which have never been debated.
If the Government have concluded that there is no case for the creation of the offence of terrorism, the issue should be argued in the House. There is a case for
720
creating the offence of terrorism. This Bill should and could have been a useful addition to the code of law to deal with terrorism.
11.54 p.m.
Mr. Concannon: I wondered when we should return to the contents of the Bill. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) we managed to do that.
We have been pressured to move quickly with the Order in Council. If it is to be introduced before the recess, we have little time left, I shall ensure that details of it are sent to hon. Members who are interested as soon as it is printed.
The maximum penalty for those convicted of bomb hoaxes will be five years' imprisonment on indictment. Most, but not all offences involving membership of proscribed organisations are tied up with other offences.
We are not short of offences connected with terrorism with which people can be charged. The law is under continuous review. That is why we have introduced the Bill and why we shall shortly introduce an order. What we are short of is evidence. We have decided to lift the maximum sentence in order to deal with the people about whom the right hon. Member for Belfast, East spoke. The judges have been using the law satisfactorily. We are not after the misguided youth of the fringe but are after the hardened criminal. The more of them that we can put away, the better. I hope that this satisfies the right hon. Member. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Snape.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (AGRICULTURE)
11.57 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn):I beg to move,
That the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
This order seeks to amend and extend several items of legislation with which the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is concerned. It also provides for adaptation of certain enactments to metric units. The draft order has been circulated to those bodies in Northern Ireland whose interests are or may be affected by it. Representations were made to the Department about a number of the provisions. I shall deal with the various points as they come up.
Most of the amendments contained in the order are of a relatively minor nature, concerned mainly with correcting deficiencies in some enactments and clarifying ambiguities in interpretation which have become apparent as a result of the Department's experience in the administration of the Acts concerned. The changes proposed are nevertheless extremely important and I trust that the House will show indulgence if I give some detailed explanations of the purposes of each article.
Article 3 amends the Livestock Breeding Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 to give the Department of Agriculture greater flexibility of control over the kind and standard of sires which may be kept for livestock production in Northern Ireland. The existing legislation prohibits the keeping of any bull over a prescribed age without a breeding licence or a permit for fattening. That proposed amendment will allow the Department to determine by regulation when to impose controls and the extent and nature of control required at any particular time.
Article 4 contains two simple amendments to the Agricultural Returns Act (Northern Ireland) 1939.
The purpose of Article 5 is to amend Section 9 of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 to make clear that the Department of Agriculture may charge for applications made and services pro-
722
vided in connection with schemes for aiding, improving and developing the breeding of livestock. It has been accepted practice for the Department to make such charges in relevant schemes since 1949, but recently legal advisers raised a query about the legal basis for them. The amendment proposed in section 9 of the Act will remove any doubts about this matter.
Article 6 amends the Marketing of Poultry Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 by removing the requirement on poultry processors in Northern Ireland to pay fees for licences and permits required by that Act.
The amendments contained in Article 7 extend the scope of the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 to include forest recreation areas and areas and provide authority for the Department of Agriculture to charge for admission to forest parks and forest recreation areas. The Act at present applies only to land owned by the Department and allows the Department to designate areas as forest parks only and to make byelaws in respect of such areas only. The proposed amendments will empower the Department to develop recreational facilities on land which is held on lease, to designate areas as forest recreation areas in circumstances where the scale of facilities will be much smaller than in a forest park, and to make byelaws for such areas.
The amendments contained in Article 8 affect the Slaughterhouses Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 in two respects: first, to bring the existing terminology in the slaughterhouse legislation into line with that required as a consequence of the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland in 1972 and 1973—for example, "local authority" became "district council "; secondly, to enable statistical information returned by individual slaughterhouses to the Department of Agriculture to be disclosed to other Government Departments for general statistical use. At present, this information may be disclosed only for the purposes of a prosecution under the Act.
The primary purpose of Article 9 is to extend to slaughterhouses operated by district councils the obligation already applying to commercial slaughterhouses to slaughter animals at the request of local butchers and to make refusal to

723
meet this obligation an offence. At present a district council may refuse slaughtering facilities or restrict services to particular retailers or wholesalers. Home consumption of meat in Northern Ireland has increased and this means increasing demands by butchers for slaughter facilities. It would be wrong to expect commercial slaughterhouses to cater for all the increased demand. Article 9 also repeals the Slaughterhouse Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. The first two sections of that Act are amended in this Order and incorporated into the Slaughterhouses Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. The remaining provisions are now obsolete in that they deal with grants for slaughterhouses operated by district councils which were terminated on 1st April 1975.
Representations were made to the Department by the Association of District Councils in Northern Ireland, by certain district councils which operate slaughterhouses and by the North of Ireland Wholesale and Export Meat Association which represents wholesale butchers and small meat-exporting firms operating from municipal slaughterhouses. They are not opposed to the proposed obligation to slaughter for retailers in principle, but they were concerned that in practice it could create problems for the management of the slaughterhouses. They felt that the provision, if enacted, would lead to an upsurge of prospective customers from outside the area normally served by each municipal slaughterhouse, and since it would be illegal to refuse such business the management would have to reduce the service given to local retailers and other established customers.
The Department takes the view, and I support it, that the situation envisaged by the councils and the meat traders will not arise to any serious extent and that retail butchers requiring slaughtering facilities will continue to approach their nearest slaughter centre. The fact that the overall slaughtering capacity in Northern Ireland is more than adequate for existing or projected throughput would tend to suport this view. Nevertheless, I have tried to go some way towards removing the fears expressed by providing in the new Section 5A(2) under Article 9 that any retailer exercising his right under the Article must abide by the byelaws applying to the slaughter-
724
house involved. This puts beyond doubt the authority of management in any municiple slaughterhouse to require users of the slaughterhouse to give adequate notice and follow other approved procedures.
Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 amend the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958. Article 10 provides for the destruction of wildlife in order to prevent the spread of certain diseases to farm animals. It also provides powers of entry for authorised officers on to land where disease in wildlife is suspected or in respect of which an order made under this article has been applied. These powers have already been given to the agriculture Departments in Great Britain.
The provisions apply to diseases for which powers of control exist in the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 because of their economic or public health importance. The wildlife to which they apply are all wild members of any species of bird or mammal.
This article raises the rather sensitive subject of powers of entry by Government officials into private property. I wish to assure hon. Members that the powers proposed represent the minimum necessary to ensure that any threat to farm livestock—and sometimes indirectly to humans—for example, TB and brucellosis—through diseases in wildlife can be investigated and eliminated. The persons who will normally act as authorised officers will be staff of the Department of Agriculture who are employed on veterinary duties. They will be under the supervision of senior officers who are well qualified to deal with the problems arising from disease in wildlife. Whenever possible at least 24 hours' notice of intended entry will be given to occupiers of land, but there may be occasions when this is not practicable, for example, because the disease problem is extremely serious and requires immediate investigation, or because it is found necessary to enter land which is contiguous to land already under investigation.
Article 11 extends the powers of inspectors under the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 by empowering them to enter any property where

725
there are reasonable grounds for supposing that there is anything which might transmit or assist in transmitting disease to farm animals.
These powers, which apply already in Great Britain, are required to complement existing controls over the importation, use and movement of dangerous animal pathogens. The existing controls were introduced as part of a programme of precautionary measures adopted following the escape of smallpox virus from a laboratory in spring 1973 which resulted in three deaths.
The Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group was established afterwards to help implement a voluntary system of control over animal pathogens dangerous to humans. This was followed by statutory controls. The agriculture Departments in the United Kingdom considered that this system might not provide sufficient protection against the risk of infection in animals since many organisms which are dangerous to animals cannot be regarded as a serious hazard to humans.
Controls cannot be fully effective unless the Department of Agriculture has the right to carry out routine inspections of premises such as laboratories where operations involve the use of pathogens which are hazardous primarily to animals.
The purpose of Article 12, which amends the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1953, is to allow the Department of Agriculture to charge fees, by order, for any services provided by the Department to importers or exporters of animals in connection with the granting of certificates, licences and the like required by the Act.
The existing provision allows the Department to charge fees in connection with the quarantine of animals, poultry and eggs only. It is intended to impose certain charges on exporters of livestock for field testing, including the taking of samples, laboratory testing, and final clinical examinations.
Article 13 extends the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 to make clear that the Department of Agriculture may, by the issue of licences, impose prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of animals, carcases, fodder,
726
and so on, in order to prevent the introduction of disease into Northern Ireland.
Article 14 is to extend the period for instituting legal proceedings for an offence under the Agriculture (Health, Safety and Welfare Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. The Act at present does not prescribe a time limit and proceedings must therefore be instituted in accordance with Section 34 of the Magistrates' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, that is, within six months of the date on which the offence was committed.
The proposed amendment provides for the institution of legal proceedings within three months of the date on which evidence sufficient to justify a prosecution becomes known to the Department of Agriculture or within 12 months of the date of the offence, whichever is the longer period.
There are three reasons for the proposed amendments in Article 15 to the Agricultural Product (Meat Regulations and Pig Industry) Act (Northern Ireland) 1962: first, to give legislative backing to the EEC directives on health problems affecting trade in meat within the Community; secondly, to enable statistical information returned by meat shippers to the Department of Agriculture to be made available to other Government Departments; and thirdly, to include "bacon" in the definition of "meat" so that it will come within the existing controls on standards of production required for neat for export from Northern Ireland.
The purpose of Article 16, which amends the Marketing of Potatoes Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. is to increase the deterrents against illegal exports of potatoes from Northern Ireland.
Control by the Department of Agriculture over the standards of quality, grading and packing of potatoes sent out of Northern Ireland are essential for the well-being of the ware potato industry. At present, the Department may seize potatoes on suspicion of their being sent out of Northern Ireland illegally but may detain them only while the suspected offence is being investigated.
The proposed amendment would enable the Department to sell such potatoes and to confiscate them or the proceeds of sale where the party involved is subsequently

727
convicted of an offence under the Act or associated Regulations.
Where that person is not so convicted, the Department will be required to release the potatoes or, if it has sold the potatoes, to pay the proceeds of the sale to that person. In addition, the maximum fine for a first offence in connection with the export of potatoes is to be raised from £50 to £250 and for a second or subsequent offence from £100 to £500. This is covered by Article 21 which deals with the proposed increases in fines in the various enactments.
The Ulster Farmers' Union expressed concern about the provision in paragraph (2), which would exempt the Department from liability for costs incurred—by reason of the detention or sale of potatoes —by a person who was subsequently acquitted of any contravention or breach. Their concern was that if potatoes were seized and sold on a falling market the owner, if acquitted, could suffer financially because the realised value of the potatoes would probably be less than their potential value at the time of seizure. This could happen on occasions but the opposite would be the case if the market were rising.
There is no simple or practical way in which the Department could attempt to balance possible gains and losses. I am satisfied that if the circumstances envisaged by the union should arise, the swings and roundabouts factor will iron out any anomalies.
I can assure hon. Members that this kind of provision is in no way novel. The Department has, under the Imported Livestock Order 1958, the power to impound and dispose of livestock suspected of being imported illegally into Northern Ireland, and, of course, forefeiture of illegally imported goods is one of the main deterrents in the Customs and Excise Act 1952.
The primary purpose of the amendment to Article 17 which amends the Pig Production Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, is to alter the basis of contributions by pig producers in Northern Ireland to the Pig Production Development Fund, which provides the finance for services and facilities employed to promote pig improvement. At present, pig producers pay a fixed levy on each pig sold to the Pigs Marketing
728
Board. It is proposed to replace this by a fixed percentage of each producer's return from pigs sold to the Board. It is not intended that this change should result in higher overall payments by producers to the Pig Production Development Fund. The change is intended to reduce the fluctuations in the revenue of the fund, which now occur when marketings of pigs fall substantially, by linking the contribution to producer returns, since these will normally be maintained by higher prices when pigs are scarce.
Article 18 provides for amendments to the Livestock Marketing Commission Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. The first amendment enables the Livestock Marketing Commission to determine the amount of contribution which it wishes to make to the Agricultural Research Council for scientific research and extends to the Commission the specific function of encouraging scientific research, At present the Commission may provide funds for scientific research only if it is required by order by the Department of Agriculture to do so. As stated in the Whits Paper "Framework for Government research and development" of July 1972, the Government wish to extend the customer-contractor approach to all applied research and development. The use of statutory powers to extract like contributions from the Meat and Livestock Commission for Great Britain has been discontinued already. This amendment will do likewise for Northern Ireland.
The second amendment under this article removes pigs from the terms of reference of the Livestock Marketing Commission. The Commission is at present empowered to examine and recommend improvements in the marketing of livestock and livestock products. The definition of "livestock" includes pigs, and a levy is collected on certain types of pig slaughtered in Northern Ireland. Most promotional work for pigs is, however, undertaken by the Pigs Marketing Board, and there is considerable resistance in the pig industry to the payment of the Commission levy. This amendment will remove any responsibility for the marketing of pigs or pig products from the Commission.
Article 19 amends the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 by removing the

729
obligation on the Department of Agriculture to obtain the approval of the Department of Finance before carrying out minor water recreational schemes, such as the provision of riverside walks, jetties, slipways, picnic sites, canoe steps, navigation markers and the like.
The purpose of Article 20 is to enable the Department of Agriculture to make regulations substituting metric for non-metric units and expressions which occur in the nine enactments specified in Schedule 1 and in any enactment the subject matter of which is akin to that of any of the provisions so specified. Authority for amendment of imperial references in agricultural legislation in Great Britain is contained in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The purpose of Article 21 is to authorise increases in fines which may be imposed under the enactments listed in Schedule 2. The increases reflect the fall in the deterrent value of the original fines due to inflation in recent years.
Article 22 contains provisions relating to the repeal of enactments specified in Schedule 3. These repeals are consequential to earlier provisions of this order.
I know that I could have attempted to put the order before the House without sufficient explanation, but I am sure that that would have been unacceptable. I commend the order to the House.
12.18 a.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his extensive and detailed explanation of the order. The hon. Gentleman has not disappointed us in any way by what he has said about the necessary revisions that should be made in respect of the Department of Agriculture. As I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will wish to raise various matters, I shall be brief.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—the matter was raised when we were talking about Northern Ireland legislation earlier—that this sort of measure should either be a Bill or should be considered by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland legislation. I should like to go into that with the Secretary of State. The provisions are extremely miscellaneous, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. They range from the breeding of
730
livestock to slaughterhouses, the destruction of infected wild life, fees and other payments charged by Government agencies, and other important agricultural matters.
We believe that the Department of Agriculture needs these powers to regulate the standard and condition of livestock in the Province, and for the other reasons that have been described, including the provisions relating to slaughterhouses. We think that the order and the circumstances under which it is presented, which we do not criticise in themselves, point to the need to consider the methods by which we consider Northern Ireland legislation in the House.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: This order, like all miscellaneous provisions orders, contains a large conglomeration of bits and pieces. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about some of them.
First, will he expand on what he said about sires for various classes of livestock in Article 3? What kind of inspection will be carried out? What standards will be laid down? From whom will advice be taken on standards? Why is it thought necessary for standards to be applied only from time to time when in the past, in the case of cattle, they have been applied continually and with great success, leading to the discouragement of scrub bulls and the production of greatly improved quality of livestock? Will the inspectorate that has been dealing with these matters in the past be maintained to carry out the necessary inspections when the need arises?
I welcome the requirement in Article 9 that all slaughterhouses must slaughter cattle and livestock for local butchers. Will the Minister assure those local butchers that the fees charged for slaughter will be reasonable? This is a matter that troubles small butchers in various parts of Northern Ireland.
A further matter that arises here concerns the ritual slaughter of cattle that are to be exported. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no cruelty will take place when such slaughter is being practised? I feel keenly about this matter. As a farmer, I am fond of animals. It is unfortunate,

731
but necessary, that animals have to be killed before we can eat them. However, I think that they should be killed as humanely and swiftly as posssible.
I agree with and share the concern of the National Farmers' Union about the open ended nature of Article 14. It means that an action can be brought against a farmer possibly six or seven years after an offence has been committed. There is something odd about the drafting. It provides that
"within the period of three months from the date on which evidence, sufficient … to justify a prosecution … comes to its knowledge, or within 12 months from the commission of the offence".
The first part is totally open ended and the second part in some way seems to close it off. Why not have one criterion or the other so that people know precisely where they stand on the matter? This point has troubled a number of people. Why has it been left so open ended?
Regarding Article 16 and the seizure of potatoes, the Minister seemed to be referring only to ware potatoes. I believe that the article covers not only ware potatoes but seed potatoes. I should like clarification on that point. The hon. Gentleman sought to justify the article on the ground of smuggled livestock. The difficulty is that potatoes can be more easily damaged than a bullock. Indeed, they tend to change their value more quickly—usually downwards rather than upwards. The analogy about what was lost on the roundabout being gained on the swings may be true over time, but the difficulty is that there are different people on the roundabout from those on the swings. I cannot see any justification for this matter. Someone who has a crop of seed potatoes, which have a high value, could find himself being chased by the Seed Potato Marketing Board because of a penalty clause.
The chance of a mistake being made is very tiny but if the Department has made a mistake I do not think it should get off the hook. It is because I believe that the chance of a mistake being made is very small that I feel that the Department should assume liability. The cost over the years would be very small and the same person would be on the swings and roundabout all the time.
732
Concerning Article 17, will the Minister tell us why he looks upon the Pig Production Development Committee as more fully representing the interests of producers than, for instance, the Ulster Farmers' Union? If this committee is taken to represent the interests of the producers in this respect, why are the views and the attitudes of the Cattle Breeders' Association in Northern Ireland not taken into account in regard to the licensing of sires of cattle?
I hope that, even at this later hour, the Minister will try to put us a little more into the picture on these matters.
12.27 a.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Under-Secretary of State replies to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Abing-don (Mr. Neave) concerning the propriety or otherwise of this order being taken on the Floor of the House at this time of night.
I say straight away that I concur entirely in the remarks made a little earlier by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) about the in-dispensability of procedure by Bill, but that is not the narrower point of criticism which was raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon, who suggested that this order would be more appropriately dealt with by the Northern Ireland Statutory Instruments Committee. That is, I believe, a Select Committee.
I would dissent from that suggestion in the case of an order such as this, where the number of points which require to be made appear, after careful previous examination of the order, to be few. Obviously, the reasons for the order being made must be put upon the record, as the Under-Secretary did tonight. Similarly, there must be an opportunity to query points and to have the answers on the record. But if that is done, it is only a matter of convenience whether it is done on the record of the House, which on the whole is preferable, or on the record of a Select Committee, which is much more difficult to come by in a handy form for later reference.
Where proceedings on an order of this sort are likely to be brief, it involves less use of ministerial and other time

733
for an order to be dealt with, as this and the following order are being dealt with, after a major sitting upon Northern Ireland business, than for the Select Committee to be summoned specially to deal with matters which are likely to be disposed of in half an hour or so.
I should like to say that it was by no means thoughtlessly that these orders were put down to be taken on the Floor of the House and that, paradoxically, there is often as good a case for taking an order which will be dealt with briefly on the Floor of the House as there is a case for taking on the Floor of the House an order which is important in itself and will absorb a great deal of debating time. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Abingdon will not take it amiss if on that matter of procedure I dissent from what he said.
Mr. Neave: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a case for more detailed scrutiny of some of these orders, which could be done by a Select Committee, with witnesses, for example, from the National Farmers' Union?
Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman were suggesting an entirely different sort of committee, a committee which we do not have at all at the moment, that is indeed a major proposal. But I think that it would be unwise to embark upon that unless we were seeing it in the context of a proposal for Select Committee handling of legislation on a much wider scale.
There is, of course, a Select Committee of the House sitting upon the general procedure in matters of legislation. I happen to be a member of that Committee, and it is perfectly possible that it would give some consideration to the question of Select Committee procedure as applied to the processes of legislation. If that were to happen, I am sure that the hon. Member for Abingdon would agree that there is nothing particularly special about Northern Ireland legislation which would justify us in taking it, so to speak, out of turn if there were to be such an improvement to our procedure.
Mr. Neave: In my speech on the first two orders I put it to the Secretary of State that we might consider a Select Committee on Northern Ireland legislation as a matter of procedure in this
734
House. The right hon. Gentleman might remember that I made that point during my earlier speech.
12.32 a.m.
Mr. Dunn: I do not think that I can make any further useful contribution to the exchange between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) other than to say that I am aware of the suggestion that has been made by the hon. Member for Abingdon. I am also aware of the other suggestions that have been made by hon. Members from Northern Ireland on improvements to the procedure which would be a greater range of opportunity for full discussion on a number of issues that come before the House.
I thought that it would have been un-forgiveable of me, when introducing this order, which covered such a wide range, to curtail my remarks even at this late hour. I realised that that would have been unacceptable to the House. I was aware of the suggestions and the discussions that ensued with regard to the earlier orders.
It is my own view that it might be of great benefit if these matters were discussed through the usual channels. Perhaps improvements can then be sought. But to set up new Select Committees— that is, other than those which already exist—may cause major difficulties and delay. That would serve no useful purpose. I leave my remarks there.
There are several points that have been put to me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He seemed to indicate that I was trying to influence the House by suggesting that only ware potatoes were of concern to the Department. If I gave that impression, I apologise. The order covers all potatoes, including seed potatoes. But, from experience, it appears that the major concern and problem is with the illegal export of ware potatoes However, we have taken on board what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman asked what sort of inspection would be carried out to determine quality of sires once the bull licence is removed. If the licences were removed there would be no inspection at all. At the moment Article 3 is an enabling measure only, and talks on the future of sire licensing have been going on in

735
Northern Ireland for some time. All boar licensing was abolished in January of this year and there has never been licensing of rams. None is envisaged in the foreseeable future.
It is recognised that a revision of bull licensing is necessary. This system has been in existence for over half a century. But it would be hard to convince me that a statutory licence scheme is practicable or worthwhile in present livestock breeding. Statutory bull licensing in Great Britain was suspended in October 1976, and in my opinion Northern Ireland should follow suit. However, my Department is having further talks with the various fanning interests shortly, and a definite line will probably be decided then, though I repeat that it will be very hard to convince me that we should depart from the recommendations in Article 3.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Article 9 and what terms would be reasonable for slaughtering cattle by local butchers and how these would be determined. The range of facilities provided by local authority slaughter houses varies from those catering purely for the Northern Ireland market to those providing EEC and international standards. For my part, I believe that in the case of local authority abattoirs, the Department, although not determining charges, confirms the byelaws made by a local authority. I think that that is sufficient protection for all concerned.
A great deal of emotion has been engendered about ritual slaughtering. The Slaughter of Animals (Northern Ireland) Act 1932 makes an exception for the stunning of animals in cases which are now recognised as religious requirements for the food of Jews and Mohammedans. Whatever the method of slaughter— religious or otherwise—the House can be assured that it must by law be carried out without inflicting unnecessary suffering. It is under the direct supervision of the Department's veterinary staff, who report to me that they are satisfied with the methods used.
Another point related to the agricultural safety, health and welfare provisions in respect of tractors. I was asked whether the three months and the 12 months were open ended. We are trying to remove danger and hazard, especially
736
to children, on farms. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members wish to do that. We are saying that, within three months of being notified of an offence or within 12 months of an offence being committed, action will be taken. It is true that the three months could become operative in certain circumstances. But my advisory staff would most often wish to deal with this matter on a local basis, probably by a warning. However, if a warning were disregarded, action would need to be taken.
As for the confiscation of potatoes, the measures are designed to protect the long-term interests of Northern Ireland farmers. I assure the House that my Department would not take action lightly. But, by the very nature of the trade, the Potato Marketing Board in Northern Ireland normally represents and sells on behalf of farmers direct to the shippers. The major offences are committed not by the farmers but in most cases by the shippers. It is rare for farmers to be involved. But, again, there is a sensitive balance here. I believe that it should be in favour of protecting the industry, and not paying too much regard to the shippers.
Mr. Wm. Ross: I have no sympathy with the person who commits a crime. I recall the case of a neighbour of mine who shipped uncertified potatoes, and the offence was not discovered until they were on a ship bound for Cyprus. They were brought back to him, by which time they were not worth very much, and no one in the area had any sympathy for him. But I am concerned about the occasional innocent person who gets caught up in this matter.
Mr. Dunn: If an offence is committed, the person is not innocent. We would take action only against a person who had committed an offence. In the main these offences are committed by shippers, not farmers. It is not unusual for the goods to be taken under the Customs and Excise Acts. These features are part of normal practice and penalty.
I was questioned about the Pig Production Development Committee. This is a statutory body which has a responsibility for advising the Department on the amount of the levy which finances the various services and facilities employed for pig improvement work and the

737
way in which it should be used. The committee gives advice as it represents the widest variety of interests in the pig industry.
Of the eight members on the committee, two are nominated by the Ulstet Fanners' Union, two by the Pig Marketing Board, one by the National Pig Breeders Association, and one by the Northern Ireland Landcare Pig Breeders Association, and two are appointed by the Department of Agriculture. The interests are spread very wide and the members are representative.
I hope that the House will approve the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FATAL ACCIDENTS)
12.41 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
This order makes one amendment of substance, otherwise it is a straightforward measure of consolidation. The earliest of the enactments to be repealed and consolidated by the order is the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, commonly known as Lord Campbell's Act. The most recent enactment to be amended is the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The legislation affected covers a period of 100 years-plus.
The Act of 1846 first introduced the principle that the dependants of a deceased person could bring an action for damages for the loss of dependancy if the death were caused by the negligence of another. While this branch of the Law in Northern Ireland and in England is essentially the same, it now differs in one important aspect because a change made
738
in England in 1971 relating to the assessment of the compensation for widows was not followed in the Province. By Article 5 (3), however, which corresponds to section 3 (2) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976—originally section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971—it is provided that, in assessing damages payable to a widow in respect of her husband's death, her remarriage or her prospects of remarriage are not to be taken into account.
Apart from this one amendment, which brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales, no change is made in the law.
I commend the draft order to the House.
12.43 a.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: In one sentence, the Opposition welcome this order. We are particularly glad that what might be called the stigma of the slave market is to be removed from the law of Northern Ireland.
12.44 a.m.
Mr. Win. Ross: I have one brief question that arises out of the comparison between this order and the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.
In Article 6(1), the order that we are discussing says:
"In assessing damages in respect of a person's death in an action under this Order there shall not be taken into account any insurance money, benefit, pension or gratuity which has been or may be paid as a result of the death."
However, such gratuities are taken into account in the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Order. Can the Minister give us an explanation?
Mr. Dunn: That order will be dealt with tomorrow. I do not wish to preempt what will be said tomorrow. This order is quite clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved. —[Mr. Snape.]
  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (NO. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Question agreed to.

  OVERSEAS AID
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With the agreement of the House, I shall put the two Overseas Aid Orders together.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the International Development Association (Fifth Replenishment) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
  That the International Development Association (Fifth Replenishment: Interim Payments) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Question agreed to.

  PARACHUTE REGIMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: It is a great privilege for me tonight to speak, albeit to a thin House, on a subject that I believe to be of the greatest possible importance to the House and the country. If the Minister had been at Wembley tonight, he would have seen many young people parading before Her Majesty the Queen and showing themselves ready, willing and able to serve their country.
  It is right that I should declare my interest in this matter. I had the honour to serve in the Parachute Regiment for six years, and I declare that freely and with pride.
  This debate was due to be held a week ago, on 22nd June—and had it been held then, it would have been on the anniversary of the date 37 years before when Sir Winston Churchill called for the formation of a parachute corps. He not only called for the formation of a corps but demanded that it be established, because he recognised the need. I am sorry, therefore, that we did not hold this debate on that night.
  I have no reason to parade before the House the history of the Parachute Regiment. I shall only remind the House that wherever the regiment has fought it has fought well and with honour, and wherever it has fought it has been in an action where it has been decisive that the regiment should fight and where decisions have been taken on the field of battle.
  I shall not parade the honours of the regiment. We all know of its exploits in Bruneval, Sicily, North Africa and Normandy. If we think of Arnhem and the crossing of the Rhine, that is sufficient to bear witness to the fact that it is a regiment that has been worthy of note in the past.
  Last Thursday night there was a gathering of past and present members of the Parachute Regiment. On that occasion it was a "full house" of those who had come together to see the premiere of the film "A Bridge Too Far". They came together on that occassion

  741
  with very mixed feelings. I was delighted to be one of those present and to feel the pride that our regiment has achieved in the past. We had a great concern for the state of our regiment and an even greater concern for its future if the present trends continue.
  In the last war our regiment built up a most wonderful spirit and élan, something which no other regiment, other than the Royal Marine Commando, has achieved. I thing it can truly be said that the Parachute Regiment has served this country well in any field in which we were required.
  My mind goes back to Borneo, Radfan, Suez—and now, of course, we think of Northern Ireland. Wherever there has been a problem for this country in the post-war period, the Parachute Regiment has not only been ready and willing to serve, but has been the spearhead of any force that we have been able to put into the field.
  Since the last war many thousands of young men have served in what was the 16th Airborne Division and in the Territorial division which was drawn from volunteers up and down the country who came together week in, week out, year in and year out, and who formed a reserve of which we could be truly proud. The area from which people were drawn to that reserve force ranged from Southampton to London, Durham, Liverpool and Glasgow. I admit that it was, to my deep regret, a Conservative Government who disbanded that division and turned it into a brigade. That was a shameful day. It was an action that was wrong for a Conservative or any other Government.
  We have left vast areas of potential reserve forces untapped, because those people who do not particularly want to be involved in what I would term the good Territorial Army reserve forces. They want to be doing something more exciting and want to be involved in parachuting. Many of those young men who could be in the Reserve forces are now not in them.
  From 1940 onwards the red beret became not just our badge—the badge of the elite of those who had special signi-finance in terms of our forces—but it was carried to other countries. Wherever one
  742
  looks in the world today there is no airborne force that does not have that red beret as its badge, singling it out from other and mundane forces—and I mean that in the nicest possible sense—which also serve but not in the same way and not with the same élan and spirit as we have in the airborne forces.
  That was and is the case. We have an elite force. What worries me about the present situation is that we have seen during the last year that the Government are determined and intent upon destroying the 16th Parachute Brigade and turning it into just one parachute battalion. The Government have said firmly that they will not allow the 44th Parachute Brigade as a reserve formation to continue as it is and that it will be reduced to just three parachute battalions. The Government have said that those who have been supporting that brigade will disappear and will no longer be airborne soldiers.
  If there were a case for such action, I could understand it, but I have searched everywhere to see whether there is another country adopting the same attitude. The Russians have seven airborne divisions, the Belgians have one, the Germans have one, the United States have one plus, and we now have one regular parachute battalion. That puts us on a par with the Belgians, and that is not to decry the Belgians. However, in terms of what we can contribute to the defence of the Western world it is surely wrong that we should be in such a situation.
  It may be—and I ask the Minister to comment on this—that that state of affairs is not much out of line with other facets of the Government's defence policy. I hope that the Minister will say why this is so and why such an elite force should be destroyed just because some people think that the day of the parachutist is over.
  Being charitable, I say it is very much a question of being penny wise and pound foolish to destroy the morale of an elite corps such as the Parachute Regiment. Being uncharitable, I say that the termites —and I do not care where they come from—are in the wood and are determined to destroy that which is worth while and can stand us in good stead. They are prepared to destroy that for the sake of a more egalitarian Army. But surely we do not wish to have that.

  743
  I know that this is not a question of Government policy. It is not just within the Ministry, but in the Services, too, that one can find people who say that the day of the airborne soldier is past. They may have a case. There are none of the great armadas of planes flying in as they did in the past, but do we need a strong, mobile and efficient force that can react quickly? If the answer is "Yes", why on earth do we not bring the airborne forces together and capitalise on these forces in the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom by creating a new type of mobile Ace force, similar to the existing Ace force, but with the significant difference that the force drawn from NATO would have an adequate reserve in the shape of 44th Parachute Brigade?
  It is criminal that the brigade should be broken up at the behest of we know not whom and that those who have worn the red beret for years should be stripped of it and told that they are no longer airborne soldiers and must therefore go back to the blue beret.
  It is destructive to morale and unnecessary to deplete our Reserves at a time when we desperately need to increase and improve the standard and efficiency of our Reserves. I have always believed that we need a weapon of opportunity that is ready to meet the unexpected. I hope that the Minister will agree that at this time in the affairs of NATO we desperately need to be ready for the unexpected and, by deliberately breaking up our airborne content, we are proposing to lay ourselves open to the unexpected that may overthrow us if we are not careful.
  We have about 60,000 reservists in TAVR. If we were courageous and saw that we needed more Reserve forces, we could look towards expansion of these territorial forces and a growth back to what was 16th Airborne Division with nine parachute battalions, which would provide for us a Reserve at a low cost relative to its value in the field and which would undoubtedly stand us in good stead in discussions with our NATO allies.
  I am sorry that I have not had the support of my hon. Friend—and I say "hon. Friend" advisedly—the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), because he commanded one of our great territorial battalions of the Parachute
  744
  Regiment. He has apologised for not being here. If he had been with us, he would have borne witness to the courage, spirit, strength and the battle-readiness of his battalion and all other parachute Reserve battalions.
  I ask the Minister to consider again whether he is right to cut back on parachute forces. The Government have already changed their minds about the 4th Royal Marine Commando. I hope that they will consider their decision, first, to break up the Regular Parachute brigade and, secondly, to break up the 44th Parachute Brigade. The Minister might say that this is not to happen and that it will still retain its parachute capability. That is not so. It is being broken up.
  Time and again people ask me why Members of Parliament do not stand up, speak their minds and tell them what is happening. Tonight, in terms of crucial matters concerning the defence of our country, I have tried to do just that.
  The Parachute Regiment is a very young regiment, but it is very proud with a rich tradition of loyalty and service. It is on the rack. Men who have proudly worn the red beret for many years are now being denied that privilege.
  My appeal tonight is not to the Government, because, however sympathetic the Minister might be, I shall have short shrift from him. My appeal is over his head to the people of the country, in the towns and villages, many hundreds of thousands of whom have worn the red beret with pride and who now see its destruction—I do not care at whose behest that is. It is happening and it must not come to pass without a protest being lodged by me and by many hundreds of others who have had the honour to serve in that regiment.
  1.3 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the rôle of the Parachute Regiment. The debate, although postponed, comes at an opportune time with the opening of the film "A Bridge too Far", reminding us all of the distinguished history of the Parachute Regiment, which

  745
  in the short space of 35 years has made the red beret a byword for toughness and bravery.
  I was one of those on the other side of the river who hoped to relieve the airborne forces but unfortunately never got through. Historians will argue why that happened. As to the film itself, it is, thank goodness, no part of my job to comment on its portrayal of events and characters, a task I leave cheerfully to critics, the surviving participants and the correspondence columns of The Times, where the truth of the saying that hindsight is the only exact science is daily demonstrated.
  It might be helpful if I were to remind the House briefly of the composition and rôle of our airborne or parachute capability since the last war. Up to 1948 we had one regular airborne division, the 6th, which was then reduced, under a Tory Government, to one brigade, the 16th Independent Parachute Brigade. The term "independent" was dropped eventually in line with the revised terminology throughout the Army. The brigade consisted of three battalions, a separate parachute company, armour, artillery and engineering supporting units and units and sub-units of various supporting services.
  This brigade, of which at least two of the infantry battalions were parachute-trained, eventually comprised the Army elements of the United Kingdom Joint Airborne Task Force from 1971 to 1975. The priority rôle for this formation has remained an airborne one during the period in question, though it has rarely been used in that rôle. It has been used frequently, however, in a normal infantry rôle, and it is as well to remind ourselves that the Parachute Regiment is primarily an infantry regiment with the additional specialist capability of being delivered to its operational area by parachute. Equally, one has to remember that because it has to be comparatively lightly equipped, by comparison, for example, with an air or sea landed force, it requires follow-up support as rapidly as possible. Thus there are limitations as well as advantages inherent in a parachute capability. That, of course, was one of the prime lessons of Arnhem, as of other major airborne operations of the last war.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: The Minister said that the battalions are lightly equipped and therefore not able to operate as infantry battalions in the true sense. It is my understanding that the present situation is that two of the three battalions are operating strictly in an infantry rôle and therefore are equipped up to the standard of the normal infantry battalion and operate, if I may use the old-fashioned term, as heavy artillery. Is that correct?
  Mr. Brown: That is true, but the hon. Member is missing my point. When the battalions are landed by parachute they cannot operate as a normal infantry battalion without quick support.
  Following the defence review in 1974, as the hon. Member will recall, it was decided to abandon the United Kingdom Joint Airborne Task Force concept, since its land forces had never been fully equipped for the highly-mobile armoured and mechanised operations in a NATO environment, and, in common with all brigades in the Army, the 16th Parachute Brigade ceased to exist with the elimination of the brigade headquarters level of command. However, the three battalions of the Parachute Regiment continue in being, and each battalion in turn undertakes an active airborne commitment as part of the 6th Field Force, which in April 1978 assumes the United Kingdom Mobile Force rôle. The two battalions not performing this rôle at any given time take on other infantry rôles. The parachute-trained supporting arms and services units for whom a parachute rôle is no longer appropriate are being given new tasks or, in some cases, disbanded, with their personnel absorbed into other units of their parent arm or service.
  In the Territorial Army there existed one airborne division from 1947 up to 1956, when the airborne element was reduced to one brigade, the present 44 Parachute Brigade (Volunteers). This formation, though with a parachute capability, did not have a primary parachuting rôle in recent years and does not have it now though, by training, it retained the ability to be so employed should it be required. It can provide reinforcements for the regular battalions.
  The hon. Member will be aware that this brigade is due to disband shortly,

  747
  but I stress that the three volunteer parachute battalions continue to exist as part of the Parachute Regiment and will continue to receive parachute training. In parallel with their regular Army counterparts, the supporting arms and service units which no longer have a parachute rôle are being allotted new operational tasks.
  There is a continuing evolutionary process in military doctrine and tactics and changing concepts require consequent changes in organisation and rôles. I am sure that I need not remind the hon. Member of the increasing emphasis on the armoured and mechanised aspects of modern warfare in a general war setting and of the increased sophistication of air and anti-air weapon systems.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: Can the Minister give me an undertaking that he will give me a firm accounting of the cost saving that has been achieved by the break-up of 44 Parachute Brigade? I should very much like to have that information— not tonight, but in the next week or so.
  Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to give any firm undertakings at this time of the morning, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.
  Because of the changes I have described, there was in the early 1970s a requirement to re-examine our total force structure and the individual rôles of its component parts. This process was under way when the defence review became necessary and absorbed the former study. The process of matching requirements to resources led to a decision that, while it was desirable to retain a parachute capability, it was acceptable to reduce it to the level we have announced—that is, one battalion group as an integral part of the new United Kingdom Mobile Force, 6th Field Force. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot be to specific about this battalion group's rôle, which in practice will depend on the decision of the military commander or commanders to whom it may be allotted.
  The hon. Gentleman has properly reminded us of the massive parachute capability of the Warsaw Pact forces, which is indeed large and effective. To
  748
  me this is just a further example of the improving Warsaw Pact capability to fight a blitzkrieg war.
  However, I do not conclude from that that we must, or indeed need, to match the Warsaw Pact strength for strength and formation for formation, since NATO's prime rôle is defensive: Rather, we need to ensure that if its forces do land, we have the means to defeat them, and I would remind the hon. Member that a large proportion of the reinforcements which we send to BAOR have just this rôle—to supplement existing, in-place forces tasked with guarding vulnerable points behind the lines against possible parachute or otherwise delivered assaults. I am confident that should these materialise a rough reception will be accorded them.
  As one of the most distinguished Members of this House, Sir Winston Churchill, once remarked, the Army is not a joint stock company. Armies, or at least the British Army, must be run with a judicious mixture of head and heart. It is run solely by the head, we may end up with a spiritless piece of machinery. If it is run solely by the heart, we end up sending cavalry against tanks. Times change and military rôles change with them. Fusiliers lose their fusils, lancers their lances; grenades and rifles are not confined to grenadiers and riflemen. But the retention of these distinguished names and traditions is important to the British Army, and long may it remain so.
  So it is with the Parachute Regiment. The three Regular and three volunteer battalions remain in their present form. The rôle and structure of our parachute capability has been changed to suit the changing times, and will no doubt change further as time goes on. In the meantime, a requirement exists for parachute capability, and we intend to retain it. There will thus remain an opportunity for young men of the necessary physical and mental fitness to accept the challenge of parachuting into action.
  While it is a perfectly proper tradition that Ministers should never reveal the military advice they have received, I think I can assure the hon. Member that if I were in danger of letting this slip by, that distinguished Colonel Commandant

  749
  of the Parachute Regiment, the Chief of jog my memory.
  the General Staff, is always at hand to
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC
  TUC
  EBBW VALE
  EBBW VALE
  AINTREE
  AINTREE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (PRESS CONFERENCE)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (PRESS CONFERENCE)
  ROAD HAULAGE
  ROAD HAULAGE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE (SPEECH)
  CBI
  CBI
  WEALTH TAX
  WEALTH TAX
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
  COLLECTIVE CABINET RESPONSIBILITY
  COLLECTIVE CABINET RESPONSIBILITY
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  NATIONAL SECURITY
  NATIONAL SECURITY
  BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
  BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS (CONDUCT)
  GOVERNMENT MINISTERS (CONDUCT)
  ABERDARON
  ABERDARON
  PORTS, BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
  PORTS, BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (VOTING)
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (VOTING)
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED
INDUSTRY
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Accelerated Projects Scheme
  Development Area Incentives
  Development Area Incentives
  Instrumentation and Automation Equipment
  Instrumentation and Automation Equipment
  Selective Financial Assistance
  Selective Financial Assistance
  Industry Act Schemes
  Industry Act Schemes
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Industrial Development Advisory Board
  Industrial Development Advisory Board
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Bromley (Borough Council Elections)
  Bromley (Borough Council Elections)
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Mental Health Act
  Mental Health Act
  Electoral Candidacy (Public Servants)
  Electoral Candidacy (Public Servants)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Prison Hospital Radiologists
  Prison Hospital Radiologists
  Broadcasting (Cardiff)
  Broadcasting (Cardiff)
  Community Development Projects
  Community Development Projects
  Community Relations Councils
  Community Relations Councils
  Albany Trust
  Albany Trust
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Gosport (Ward Boundaries)
  Gosport (Ward Boundaries)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Norman Park, Bromley (Model Aircraft Inquiry)
  Norman Park, Bromley (Model Aircraft Inquiry)
  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Pay
  Members' Pay
CIVIL SERVICE
  Central Veterinary Laboratory (Dispute)
  Central Veterinary Laboratory (Dispute)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (DISPUTE)
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (DISPUTE)
TRANSPORT
  Al(London)
  Al(London)
  A1 (Archway)
  A1 (Archway)
TRADE
  Air Services (United Kingdom- United States Agreement)
  Air Services (United Kingdom- United States Agreement)
  Czechoslovakia
  Czechoslovakia
  Commonwealth Countries
  Commonwealth Countries
  Air Services (United Kingdom-United States Agreement)
  Air Services (United Kingdom-United States Agreement)
  Copyright (Royalty Rates)
  Copyright (Royalty Rates)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  School Dental Officers (Leek)
  School Dental Officers (Leek)
  Corsodyl
  Corsodyl
  Chlorhexidine Gluconates
  Chlorhexidine Gluconates
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Mr. Peter MacBryan
  Mr. Peter MacBryan
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Infant Mortality (Leek)
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Primary Schools (Leek)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Leicestershire Education Authority
  Leicestershire Education Authority
  Bagworih and Battram Schools
  Bagworih and Battram Schools
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Teacher Training Costs
  Teacher Training Costs
  Teachers (Employment)
  Teachers (Employment)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Organs (Departmental Contracts)
  Organs (Departmental Contracts)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Orpington Police Station
  Orpington Police Station
  Tourism (Accommodation Registration)
  Tourism (Accommodation Registration)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Motor Cars)
  Civil Servants (Motor Cars)
  Wives
  Wives
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  University Lecturers (Overseas Earnings)
  University Lecturers (Overseas Earnings)
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
  Sub-contractors (Tax-Exemption Certificate)
  Sub-contractors (Tax-Exemption Certificate)
  Railway Season Tickets
  Railway Season Tickets
  Taxes
  Taxes
  Industrial Workers (Pay and Deductions)
  Industrial Workers (Pay and Deductions)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
SCOTLAND
  Arbroath Infirmary
  Arbroath Infirmary
  Employment (Training)
  Employment (Training)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Housing
  Housing
  Council Houses (Maintenance Costs)
  Council Houses (Maintenance Costs)
  Police (Scotland) Bill
  Police (Scotland) Bill
  House Purchase and Improvement
  House Purchase and Improvement
ENERGY
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
  European Community (British Presidency)
  European Community (British Presidency)
  Imports
  Imports
  Electricity Bills
  Electricity Bills
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentina (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Argentina (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Phosphate Mining
  Phosphate Mining
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Gilbert Islands
  Gilbert Islands
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Diplomatic Missions (Marriage Ceremonies)
  Diplomatic Missions (Marriage Ceremonies)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  International Whaling Commission
  International Whaling Commission
  Marketing Boards
  Marketing Boards
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Agricultural Wages
  Agricultural Wages
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Lime Subsidy
  Lime Subsidy
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Fishing Rights
  Fishing Rights
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Production Changes
  Production Changes
  Horticultural Economic Intelligence Unit
  Horticultural Economic Intelligence Unit
  Dairy Products (New Zealand)
  Dairy Products (New Zealand)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  National Land Bank
  National Land Bank
  Fisheries Regulations (Violation)
  Fisheries Regulations (Violation)
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Ministerial Speeches
  Ministerial Speeches
  National Farmers' Union (Horticulture Sub-Committee)
  National Farmers' Union (Horticulture Sub-Committee)
  Hill Farms (Wales)
  Hill Farms (Wales)
  Dairy Herd
  Dairy Herd
  Food Production
  Food Production
  White Rust
  White Rust
  Agricultural Exports
  Agricultural Exports
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Food (Self-sufficiency)
  Food (Self-sufficiency)
  Australia and New Zealand
  Australia and New Zealand
  Fishing Quota (Norwegian Waters)
  Fishing Quota (Norwegian Waters)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Eritrea
  Eritrea
DEFENCE
  Uganda
  Uganda
EMPLOYMENT
  "Young People and Work"
  "Young People and Work"
  Staffordshire
  Staffordshire
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Incomes Policy
  Incomes Policy
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Chemical and Aircraft Industries
  Chemical and Aircraft Industries
  Trade Unions (Non-Membership)
  Trade Unions (Non-Membership)
  West Norfolk
  West Norfolk
  Industrial Tribunal Members
  Industrial Tribunal Members
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Registration)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Registration)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND THE GOVERNMENT
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the relationship between themselves and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is a statutory public body and the statutory relationship between the Authority and Her Majesty's Government is that established by the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Part I of the Act defines the constitution and functions of the Authority and sets out the ways in which Her Majesty's Government may regulate the performance by the Authority of its functions.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I spent this morning studying the Civil Aviation Act, and I am wondering whether the noble Lord will agree that in it we are told that the Government and the Authority work closely together wherever both international and domestic aspects of civil aviation are concerned. Arising out of that, and out of that cooperation, can the Minister clear up something which left me, anyway, in a muddle last week? Do the Government consider that they have the responsibility and the authority to make suggestions, though not to offer directives, to the Civil Aviation Authority?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in addition to formal directives, my right honourable friend can offer guidance to the Authority,
1216
but Section 3 of the Act makes it quite clear that the guidance is to relate to really major matters of aviation policy and not small matters of day-to-day administration. Indeed, if he does offer such guidance it is only by the Authority of Resolutions of each House of Parliament.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me, arising out of that reply but considered from a slightly different angle, whether he recalls that, during the protracted discussions on the renegotiation of the Bermuda Agreement, it was said that if agreement was not reached United States' airlines would not be allowed to land in this country? On whose authority would such a decision be taken? Would it be that of the Government, or that of the Civil Aviation Authority? Or would it be the subject of this co-operation that I have already mentioned?
Lord ORAM: That, my Lords, I imagine would be a joint matter of consultation between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. Certainly, it is the Government who would take final decisions in such a broad matter, but the matter which my noble friend pursues in her series of Questions does not rank with that in any way.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend reaffirm his own right honourable friend's ministerial political responsibility as a Minister for these matters regardless, if necessary, of the advice that he may receive from his permanent civil servants?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend can only act within the law, and the law is the Civil Aviation Act 1971. His powers of direction relate only to situations in time of war, whether actual or imminent, and he deals with matters of national security and the fulfilment of this country's international obligations. It is in that order of business that my right honourable friend is able to exercise his authority.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? As the Government accept from the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines that the practice of overbooking is to

1217
continue—an opinion which he knows I do not share—may I ask the noble Lord, unless he regards it as too small a matter in view of what he said previously, whether the Government are actually taking the stand that, although they consider that overbooking should be allowed to continue, they do not agree that air travellers should be given the facts when they buy their tickets and before they take their flights?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if I may say so, my noble friend leaves the impression that the whole problem of overbooking is as it was a year or 18 months ago. That is very far from the case. We have a voluntary scheme of compensation which is now operated by 27 overseas airlines and 10 United Kingdom airlines. The question of the return ticket is now being pursued in the European Civil Aviation Conference. It is difficult to quantify these matters, but, in my estimation, the problem has been 99 per cent. met. There is the continuing problem of the degree of publicity for the compensation scheme and, on this, Her Majesty's Government accept the view of the Civil Aviation Authority.

WORK PERMITS: HOTEL AND CATERING
3.6 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many work permits have been issued to persons from overseas for employment in the hotel and catering industry in 1977.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, available figures for hotel and catering exclude workers in hostels and industrial catering. These figures show that in the five months to the end of May just over 900 permits had been issued.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. In view of the number of vacancies for
1218
trained and trainable staff in the Provinces for people who are prepared to work in catering, and the high home unemployment in those same areas, will the Minister consider what can be done to encourage British youth to enter the trade? May I further ask what training schemes exist?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, without detailed figures at hand, I can say that a considerable number of training schemes exist in various areas. The industry is endeavouring to encourage people to enter into the hotel and catering trades. The Government are concerned about the future of the quota, which was introduced in 1972 by the Conservative Administration. In view of the persistent high level of unemployment, Ministers intend that these special arrangements should be phased out. The quota is reviewed annually, and talks with representatives of the unions, employers, and manpower services about a quota for 1978 are expected to take place later in the year. In the meantime, I agree with the noble Lord that every effort should be made to encourage people to enter training, but in the past one of the problems for the non-skilled section has been the extremely low wages paid. This is a matter for concern. For the skilled workers it is a different matter. Adequate schemes exist and probably need more publicity.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, before work permits are issued, do the Government make quite sure that the jobs for which people are coming here will be remunerated at the proper trade union rates of pay?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, my Lords, they do. But there are probably some instances, of course, where official rates may not be observed. This is a matter for investigation to be carried out and reported on where such cases exist. The problem is to obtain factual proof.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, surely the Minister must be aware that many of these workers are not paid anything like minimum trade union rates. Would he confirm that the vast majority of the 900 permits to which he referred in his first Answer were issued to non-EEC foreign nationals, and that very few permits are

1219
given to Commonwealth citizens? The fact that so many work permits are being issued to foreigners and so few to Commonwealth citizens shows that there is racism in our immigration laws.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, there is some confusion here, because the noble Lord is probably well aware that special quotas exist to help the citizens of Malta, the Dependent Territories, and United Kingdom passport holders. So far as the low level of wages is concerned, this is a matter for some investigation. I shall pass on the remarks of both noble Lords to my right honourable friend.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question. How many of these 900 work permits in the hotel and catering industry were issued to non-EEC foreigners? I did not ask about the Maltese. If the noble Lord does not have this information will he make inquiries and let the House have the information?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I have the answer, my Lords: 870 out of the 900.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, would the Government not agree that, at a time when steps have been taken to strengthen the law relating to food hygiene, the availability of trained staff is very relevant and that sometimes it is the inability of management to obtain trained staff interested in doing a good job that leads to hygiene conditions which are unsatisfactory?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, my Lords, and this is primarily a matter for the industry concerned. The noble Lord has probably seen recently Press reports and photographs of the "dirty mouse" giving an active portrayal of what can happen to people who do not understand English but who apparently understand the antics of a trained dirty mouse.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, can the country afford a situation where the hotel industry is short of skilled staff yet at the same time British people can prefer to remain unemployed rather than train for vacancies in the industry?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, my impression is contrary to that of the noble Lord. People do not prefer to remain unemployed. The view which the noble Lord expressed is a mistaken attitude of mind which unfortunately too many people have. The problem is to provide increased facilities for training and for all sections of the industry to give increased co-operation. Not all the employers are large. There are some extensive schemes of training and in some areas there are excellent schemes. For example, the City College in Norwich has an excellent reputation for turning out trained staff. But in some areas the facilities are not what they should be, and that is a matter we should look into.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope the Minister will not tar the industry with the brush of low wages. Is he aware that, while of course there will always be exceptions, some extremely high wages are paid?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, one is of course using comprehensive terms about the industry. There are some small sections about which one can be somewhat dubious in regard to their low rates, but the general standard of the bigger sections, the well-known chains of hotels and so on, is a different matter; they have agreements with trade unions and these are effective. It is the smaller organisations, some of them Continental, which are suspect.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is not a proper career structure between the low paid and the untrained working towards training, so that in the catering trade there are two separate categories of worker, with no link between the two, and no career structure?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is quite right. That was one of the matters dealt with in a Statement made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend, which unfortunately was not repeated in this House. The emphasis of that scheme is to give training to unskilled workers to give them better employment opportunities.

NEW PALACE YARD: CATALPA TREES
3.13 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the condition of the catalpa trees in New Palace Yard; and what they intend to do to save these trees from possible death.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, these splendid old trees now in leaf are well past their normal life-span. The construction of the underground car park and last year's drought affected them badly. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to rejuvenate them and, if deterioration continues, replacement is the only answer.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: I hope the Government will accept advice on this matter, my Lords. Are the Government quite sure that these fine trees are condemned to death because of the building of this expensive car park and the unfortunate drought which followed it? I hope the Government will make every effort to save some of the finest examples in this country of the Indian bean tree.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that he is pushing at a very open door. At the time when the plans were put forward for the construction of the underground car park it was certainly the view of my Department that the trees should if possible be saved, and in fact they were. We get advice from the Advisory Committee on Forestry. It is now simply a question of whether the trees deteriorate even more. There is also the fact that tree surgery must be carried out frequently because of the danger of a branch knocking off the odd MP now and then—
Several noble Lords: Shame!
Baroness BIRK:—and that must be taken into account as well. However, I can assure the noble Lord that personally I would do anything to save any tree.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the fact they may knock off the odd MP now and then, some of us have great affection for these catalpa trees and would like to know whether dendrologists were approached for advice before the underground labour was undertaken? Is she further aware that we believe that these trees could still be saved if first-class advice from dendrologists was obtained?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we get absolutely first-class and expert advice from the Advisory Committee on Forestry. As my noble friend knows, the plan was agreed by another place for the reconstruction and landscaping, and a decision was taken to keep the old trees. Nevertheless, the change in the water level due to the work that had to be undertaken must have some effect on them. The trees are now about 110 years old and their normal life-span is 80, so really nature is taking its course.
The Marquess of ABERDEEN and TEMAIR: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—of course she is, and I apologise for wandering so far to the left of my normally independent posture—that the catalpa tree, the Indian bean tree, is of United States origin and that, if these trees have to go, it would be the very greatest pity if they are not replaced?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, three new catalpas have been planted alongside them, and I assure the noble Marquess that if they have to go there is simply no question of their not being replaced.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say how many MPs are equal to one Indian bean tree, whether it is a live bean tree or a has-been tree?
Baroness BIRK: The noble Viscount must work that out for himself, my Lords.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
3.17 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment

1223
after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the European Council meeting, and this will be followed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor repeating a Statement on the Grunwick dispute.

TRANSPORT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Read a, and passed.
REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINIBUS BILL
Baroness YOUNG: 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. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL
3.19 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. While much may be said about this Bill, I trust that no one will seek to argue that it has not received the fullest possible debate before its introduction into your Lordships' House. No doubt this House will wish to ensure that the Bill is thoroughly debated here, but perhaps I might express the hope that in considering the Bill, your Lordships will not seek to emulate the record-breaking attempts witnessed last week in another place.
The basic purpose of this Bill is to provide new power to replace the current price control legislation which expires on 31st July. That legislation is to be found in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973,
1224
the Prices Act 1974, and the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. The present system of controls is based on a Price Code which is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. The Price Commission is the interpreter of the Code and examines prices to see whether they comply with its terms. Except as a matter of law, there is no appeal from the Commission's decisions, subject to the ability of the Secretary of State to consent to matters which would otherwise be prohibited by the Code.
While the Code is a valuable weapon in the war against inflation, the present system has a number of defects. It is based on two elements, allowable costs and profit margin controls. The former permit a firm to pass on to the consumer virtually all increases in its costs and do not permit any investigation into questions of efficiency. The profit margin controls are based on levels of profitability which prevailed when price controls were first introduced. A firm's net profit margin reference level may be above or below the average for that sector, and this may work to the firm's unfair advantage or detriment.
The proposals put forward in this Bill contain a different approach. The Price Code will be retained, but on a limited and temporary basis. The power to impose cost controls will be repealed with only the margin controls remaining. Moreover, the power to enforce a Code will disappear completely after 31st July 1978, unless further legislation is introduced in the meanwhile.
The main feature of the new system will be selective investigations of price increases carried out by a strengthened and expanded Price Commission. As at present, the larger manufacturing and service firms will have to give the Price Commission 28 days' notice of their intention to raise prices. The Commission will consider these pre-notifications and the information supplied with them. If it considers that the reason for the increase requires further scrutiny, it will mount an investigation during which the price may be partially, or completely, frozen. When the Commission has completed its investigation, it will submit a report to the Secretary of State, who may make an order freezing the increase for up to 12 months from the date of pre-notification.

1225
The Government attach importance to making the investigatory system permanent. It has been argued that this feature of the Bill is undesirable, except possibly as a temporary anti-inflationary device. However, this argument ignores the nature of the new powers. Unlike the margin controls, which are to be temporary, which apply across the board and which are tied to pay policy, the investigatory powers will be selective. They will enable the Commission to carry out an in-depth survey of the reasons for individual price increases and, on the basis of generalised criteria, to see whether these are justified. The Commission will be able to form a view as to whether costs are being incurred unnecessarily, or whether a company is abusing a dominant market position.
While most of the Price Commission's investigations are likely to be in areas where competition is limited, it would be wrong to confine the new powers to the statutory monopoly situations within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act 1973. There are many areas outside the field of pure monopoly where competition is far from perfect. Price leadership and parallel pricing are common, and it should be recalled that about 40 per cent. of net manufacturing output is concentrated in the top 100 firms.
The Government consider that there is a case for an eventual amalgamation of the Price Commission and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, as was explained by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State during the debate on Report in another place, many policy and legal issues remain to be resolved before such legislation can be introduced. Meanwhile, the Government consider the present Bill represents the best means of establishing an effective prices policy.
I should stress very firmly that industry is unlikely to suffer as a result of the new system. Criticism has been levelled at the proposed powers to freeze prices during investigations. However, it is the Government's view that the absence of such powers would he totally unfair to consumers who had paid prices later held by the Commission to be unjustified. Firms under investigation will, moreover, be protected in a number of ways. Their
1226
protection will lie in the independence and good sense of the Commission, the new Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of which were announced last week. They will be protected from unnecessary investigation by the inability of the Commission to mount more than about 40 investigations a year—a small percentage of all increases notified.
Finally, there will be the safeguards regulations. Under Clause 9 of the Bill, the Secretary of State will be required to make regulations prescribing minimum levels of profitability which firms ate not to be prevented from earning as a result of investigations and examinations. A firm whose profits fall within the safeguard limits will thus be entitled to an interim price increase during an investigation as of right, and the Commission will also be free to permit it further increases over and above the safeguards level.
The Bill is admittedly complex in parts. This is perhaps inevitable, especially because it amends the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, which has already undergone substantial amendment. It is hoped to introduce a Consolidation Bill very shortly. However, it might be of assistance to your Lordships if I explain some of the more important of the various clauses.
The first clause deals with the constitution of the Price Commission. The Commission is to continue in being as a body corporate subject to the provisions of the Bill. The requirement for members of the Commission to be appointed, jointly by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as by the Secretary of State, is deleted. This reflects the fact that when the Counter-Inflation Act was enacted, there was no Secretary of State for Prices, and appointments were made jointly by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The creation of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection removes the need for such joint appointments.
In conjunction with Schedule 1, Clause 1 provides for investigations and examinations to be carried out by a group consisting of not less than three members of the Commission. However, as a result of an Amendment made to the Bill before its introduction into your Lordships' House, reports must now be made

1227
by the Commission. A group's conclusions will have no legal effect unless endorsed by the Commission as a whole. Finally, the clause contains a declaratory provision stating that the Commission is not to be regarded as an agent of the Crown. While this is not part of the Bill itself, I think it is relevant to consideration of Clause 1 to mention that an order will shortly be made by the Secretary of State increasing the maximum size of the Commission from 12 to 16. This will assist the Commission in the performance of its new investigative role, and enable it to reflect the widest possible range of experience.
Clause 2 contains the fundamental criteria which are to guide the Commission and the Secretary of State in performing their functions under the Bill. The Commission is required to have regard to all matters which appear to it, in the particular circumstances, to be relevant, with a view to restraining prices of goods and charges for services in so far as that appears to the Commission to be consistent with the making of adequate profits by efficient suppliers of goods and services. However, the Commission is also required to have particular regard to eight specified criteria. These criteria, to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 2, are not to he regarded as a substitute for the Price Code. The Commission does not have to take them all into account if it considers that certain items are not relevant to the case under consideration. Moreover, provided that it considers them relevant, the Commission can take into account other factors which do not feature in the list of criteria. But the criteria are the basic guidelines to which the Commission and the Secretary of State must have regard, and firms will be able to pray them in aid in justifying proposed price increases.
Clause 3 deals with the Commission's general reports to the Secretary of State. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that the Commission need make only an annual report. However, Amendments made in another place provide for retention of the current practice of quarterly reports.
Clauses 4 to 8 deal with the conduct of investigations, the preparation of reports by the Commission and the subsequent making of orders by the
1228
Secretary of State. Clause 4 deals with firms subject to the requirement to prenotify price increases. Basically, these are the larger manufacturing and service firms. If the Commission wishes to investigate a proposed increase, it must serve a notification on the Secretary of State and the firm within the 28 days following pre-notification of the proposed price increase. The Secretary of State will have the right to order that an investigation be discontinued at any time, although such a veto will be exercised only in the most exceptional circumstances. During the investigation, the price increase may be frozen, but the Commission may award an interim price increase of any amount. The Commission will be obliged to award such an increase as the firm is entitled to obtain under the safeguards regulations. Clause 5 deals with the investigation of the prices of non-prenotifying manufacturing and service firms and of the margins of distributors. The procedure is similar to that set out in Clause 4, but, as there is no pre-notification, it is the existing price rather than a proposed price increase which is investigated. Moreover, distributors' margins may not be frozen during an investigation.
Clause 6 specifies the manner in which an investigation is to be conducted. Essentially, all investigations must be concluded within three months. A firm subject to investigation is allowed to demand a public inquiry if it so wishes, but such an inquiry may not be forced on the firm against its will. Certain restrictions are imposed on the recommendations which may be contained in the Commission's report. The Commission may not recommend that a price increase be restricted to a greater degree than is permitted under the safeguards regulations, nor may it recommend an increase of less amount than an interim price increase already awarded to the firm. The restriction recommended may not be of more than 12 months' duration, calculated from the date of pre-notification in the case of an investigation under Clause 4 and from the start of the investigation in the case of proceedings under Clause 5.
Clauses 7 and 8 deal with undertakings given and orders made following an investigation. The Price Commission's

1229
recommendations are to have automatic effect for 28 days following delivery of the report. The Secretary of State may accept an undertaking from the firm at any time, or he may make an order in the last two weeks of the 28-day period. Such orders are subject to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament, and they may not impose restrictions more onerous than those recommended by the Price Commission. Where an undertaking is broken, the Secretary of State's order-making powers are brought into play once more. Clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to make safeguards regulations defining profits which firms are not to be prevented from earning as a result of investigations or examinations. The Consultative Document containing an outline of the Government's proposals was published on the 15th June, and draft regulations will be published next week.
Clauses 10 to 13 deal with sectoral examinations. The Secretary of State already has power, under Schedule 1 to the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, to refer to the Price Commission general matters relating to prices and charges. The main innovation introduced by the Bill is that the Secretary of State will now have power to make orders giving effect to the Commission's recommendations. The new powers are naturally hedged about with suitable safeguards. The Secretary of State will not be able to refer an individual firm to the Commission unless it is in a monopoly position. Individual investigations may be initiated only by the Commission. Moreover, where an order following an examination is to be of more Wan 12 months' duration, it will be subject to approval by Resolution of each House of Parliament, rather than to annulment. Under the sectoral examinations provisions, the Secretary of State will be given the specific power to refer to the Commission practices involving recommended retail prices, and to make orders in consequence of the Commission's recommendations.
Clause 14 gives permanent force to various provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. They are the power to require the pre-notification of price increases, to enforce the Commission's decisions, and to obtain information. They are all a necessary part of the investigatory system.
1230
The powers of the Secretary of State for Trade to control insurance premiums are also made permanent.
Clause 15 provides that future Price Codes may not contain cost controls. Industry will naturally be consulted on the new Code to take effect after 31st July and a Consultative Document will be published next week. The clause also renews the provisions of the Remuneration Charges and Grants Act 1975 which permit the Code to contain a pay sanction and extends that to the new investigatory system. Clause 16 extends the powers of the Secretary of State in the field of price display. In particular, it extends these powers to all goods which a retailer indicates are for sale, or may be for sale, and it brings within control the display of prices for the provision of services to a consumer in his private capacity.
Clause 17 renews until 31st July 1978 certain of the provisions of the Remuneration Charges and Grants Act 1975 which support a pay policy. These pay provisions have no effect unless a White Paper has been published and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The clause also extends until 31st July 1978 the power to enforce a Price Code.
Clause 18 places on a permanent statutory basis the power of the Secretary of State to make grants to local authorities and other bodies in respect of local price surveys and the provision of advice to consumers. Clause 19 requires the Price Commission to give the Director General of Fair Trading information about any unregistered restrictive trade agreement which comes to light in the course of its investigations. It also gives the Secretary of State the right to transfer to the Price Commission the task of supervising orders and undertakings arising from an investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The remaining clauses, Clauses 20 to 24, and the second and third Schedules are largely technical.
My Lords, the Bill is an important measure. The Government do not pretend that it will provide a panacea for controlling inflation. The cure for that ill lies in a wider range of policies, including the control of public expenditure and the maintenance of an effective voluntary wage policy. However, by enabling effective action to be taken in areas where market forces do not serve as an adequate

1231
restraint on prices, the Bill will play an important dual role both in restraining prices and in improving competition policy. As such, it will be of benefit to every inhabitant of this country. I commend the Bill to Your Lordships and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Oram.)

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
3.44 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I should like to make a short Statement on the meeting which concluded at lunch-time today of the European Council. Two Statements have been issued on growth, inflation and unemployment and on the Middle East and both have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The European Council reviewed economic developments since our meeting in Rome and recognised the need for a sustained expansion of world economic activity consistent with a further reduction of the rate of inflation and of unemployment.
"Unemployment was a leading theme of our discussions, particularly employment of young people and of women and I was able to report to the other Heads of Government details of the Youth Opportunities Programme which was announced to the House yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. This initiative was very much welcomed.
"Following the last European Council I wrote to the Chairman of the Governors of the European Investment Bank asking for proposals from the Bank to promote investment and employment. I reported to the Council that in reply the Chairman has given a positive indication of an immediate expansion in the Bank's activities which could lead to lending within the Community of about £750 million in 1977 and £1 billion in 1978.
1232
"Members of the Council emphasised the importance of the commitments made by some Heads of Government to the achievement of specific growth targets in 1977 and emphasised the need to promote stability and to seek expansion through export-led growth.
"We invited the Commission to study certain sectors of industries in our countries which are adversely affected by structural changes in the economy whilst adhering to the view that a liberal commercial policy was in the best interests of the Community and of the world as a whole.
"I was able to bring other Heads of Government up to date on the passage of events in Southern Africa, including an account of the discussions at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It was agreed that the situation is growing in seriousness and the Foreign Ministers will continue to exchange views in order to achieve a concerted policy.
"There was a useful exchange of views on East/West relations and President Giscard reported on the recent visit to Paris of President Brezhnev.
"The Statement on the Middle East affirmed that all aspects of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 must be taken into account and our Statement reflects the leading role which the United States has in promoting negotiations for a peace settlement. It was nevertheless the view of the Heads of Government that a Statement by the Nine at this stage would make clear our view of the need for progress in further negotiations.
"This was a useful but not dramatic meeting which enabled us to review existing policies and where necessary to adapt them to a changing situation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I should like to express on behalf of my noble friends our thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated this Statement. Having said that, I think it a remarkably unhelpful Statement and perhaps it is more remarkable for what it does not say than for what it does say. First, we are told that

1233
two Statements have been put into the Library of the House, so that at the moment we are not able to discuss them, although the full text of the Statement on the Middle East has been published in today's Press.
Secondly, I should like to draw to the attention of the noble Lord—and perhaps he will make some comment when he comes to reply—that there is nothing in this Statement referring to the siting of the JET at Culham. I understand, again entirely from the Press, that this was a major matter for discussion among the Prime Ministers of the Nine. One quite accepts that they may not have come to a satisfactory conclusion and, indeed, everybody accepts that it is a difficult problem for us and for other members of the Community. But I think that one is permitted to believe that it is extraordinary in matters of this kind that this particular matter has not been reported to the House.
I should like also to make a comment on the question of the renewed economic activity which was hoped for for Western Europe, bearing in mind that Ireland, Italy and ourselves have by far the largest inflation rates; and that combating inflation in countries like Belgium and Germany—and I understand that the rate of inflation per annum in Germany is 3·8 per cent.—cannot be of such major concern as it is to our own country.
Another point that I should like to raise is the question of loans from the European Investment Bank. I hope that during these discussions, and the programme that follows, considerably more loans from the Investment Bank will go to the private sector of industry in this country rather than the nationalised industries, as last year about 75 per cent. went to nationalised industries and only the remainder to the private sector.
Regarding the programme for reducing unemployment, I am certain that all noble Lords will welcome any positive policies which are going to help in the reduction of unemployment, and particularly in the field of youth unemployment. Again, it was surprising that in the Press there was very much emphasis on the fact that assistance would come from the European Social Fund in order
1234
to help this programme along. It is also surprising therefore that that was not included in a statement which is concerned with a meeting of the European Council of Ministers.
In conclusion, it is clear that a great many matters were discussed at the Council of Ministers' meeting this time. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having read a Statement which does not make us very much wiser. It is regrettable that the last Council of Ministers' meeting which took place in this country under the Presidency of the United Kingdom should be rather uninspiring.
3.52 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches would likewise like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. So far as it goes, it seems to be virtually unexceptionable. We can all agree with the proposals for increasing the promotion of investment by the European Investment Bank. We gather from the final paragraph that it was a useful but not dramatic meeting. Does that mean that if, by any chance, any decision had been taken, it would have been dramatic? But so far as I can understand it, no decision was taken.
More especially—if we can judge from the Press—no decision was taken on the matter which has been outstanding now for a year or two: namely, the Joint European Torus Scheme. That is wholly deplorable. Is the Minister able to tell us why it is impossible to get a decision at long last? And if a decision cannot be taken by the European Council, by whom can it ever be taken? I suggest it is no good referring it back to the Foreign Ministers—they cannot take decisions if the Prime Ministers cannot. Indeed, if I may be allowed to say so, this meeting was more in the nature of an amicable fireside chat, doing no harm but no particular good. Whether it was worth while assembling these Heads of State from all over the Community in order to arrive at no decisions is anybody's guess.
There is another Statement which I understand we have not seen, on Palestine. We gather from the Press that the Council came out strongly in favour of the eventual constitution of a Palestinian State. I do not know whether that is so: perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. But, if

1235
that is so, is the Minister in a position to say whether, in the opinion of the Government, they should not proceed in the direction of the constitution of a Palestinian State until such time as all the Arab States have freely admitted that the State of Israel is a sovereign State which will continue to be in existence, and whose sovereignty and integrity will not be prejudiced, whatever the eventual agreement on boundaries may be?
3.56 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I was rather surprised that the noble Baroness said that the Statement was unhelpful; I cannot be blamed for that, in any case. After all, when you have had a series of meetings and discussions at a high level you cannot cover in a Statement everything that has happened. A Statement obviously must be relatively brief. The complaint that I have usually had has been that Ministers, when making Statements, are too long and tedious. I welcome receiving a shorter and briefer contribution.
I was asked specifically about JET. I take an interest in that and this matter was raised earlier. This issue has been discussed. As noble Lords know, the main problem has been the choice of site. There are problems if the design team at Culham is to be kept in being, and I believe that a decision is urgent. That is the view of the Prime Minister. It has been agreed that Foreign Ministers should meet before the end of July in order to reach agreement on this issue. The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council is on 26th July. Noble Lords know that the question is whether the site should be at Culham or Garching. There have been difficulties over this. It is the view of the United Kingdom that a decision on the site should be taken on the merits of the case. We believe that we have a good case. That is important.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I wondered if there was any truth in the newspaper statement that the offer of a site at Culham was connected with budget contributions. Was this just a newspaper red herring?
Lord PEART: I think so. As I have said, my Lords, it is our view that the site should be at Culham. We have a long
1236
tradition of plasma physics research there. Noble Lords have taken an interest in that, especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone; he was once responsible for science and, I know, took a great interest in that. We are anxious to have the site at Culham; we believe that we can make a major contribution. That is not anti-European or anti-German in any way. We feel that we have a lot to offer in this direction.
The noble Baroness, quite rightly, mentioned about new economic activity. She pointed out the problems of inflation which hit us of course. She quite rightly compared us with Germany. This is a problem that we have to conquer here. Mention was made of the European Investment Bank, and whether more loans will go to the private sector rather than the nationalised industries. I cannot give a specific assurance on this; but I will certainly convey the point to Ministers who are responsible. I want investment to be achieved—especially as we have a mixed economy—in the private sector as well as the public sector. I do not think there should be any rivalry here.
I was asked also about the programme for reducing unemployment. Of course this was the theme that was developed by the Prime Minister. He felt that, because we have problems peculiar to our own country—urgent problems affecting our young people—this should be a major theme in Europe. This was taken up and I am sure that much will come out of the Community on this aspect as policies work out in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked one or two questions. He thought that the meeting was more like a fireside chat, a cosy chat. I would rather have that than some of the conferences that I have seen with other people representing our country at larger organisations in the United Nations. He will know, as a former ambassador, that often conferences which highlight things where there is controversy do not produce results. It is not a bad idea that sometimes our leaders can have cosy chats. I am sure that behind the scenes there were hard debates. I do not see why there should be this criticism of what has emerged from the Community. Some useful work has been done. Indeed, the noble Lord, lord

1237
Gladwyn, said this. The work was not dramatic; nevertheless, something has been done.
I was asked specifically about Palestine. A Statement is available in the Library. The emphasis is that we believe—and we have said this over and over again—that it would be a mistake to comb the Statement for novelty. Our purpose is to make clear our view of the need for progress towards negotiations which might lead to an ending of the tragic conflict in the Middle East and our support for efforts being made to bring this about. I will not quote from the Statement—it is rather lengthy—but we recognise the sovereignty of Israel. We also recognise that there is a problem which affects the Arab community as well. When noble Lords have read that Statement I think they will be satisfied.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would answer this question. He spoke of East-West relations being discussed with particular reference to Mr.Brezhnev's visit to Paris. Could he say whether there was any mention of relations with the Chinese People's Republic, in view of the fact that a European Commission delegation is proceeding there at this moment? Does he know the terms of reference of this delegation?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not know. When I leave the Chamber I will certainly try to get the terms for the noble Earl. Whether or not matters affecting China or relations with China were discussed, I cannot say. It was not in the Statement or the documents to which I have had access.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, so far as I understand the Statement on the Middle East which the Nine have produced at the end of this conference, I think most of us would be very pleased with it and I only regret that they did not do it rather sooner. Since we in Britain took the initiative which produced Resolution 242 which is to be the basis of the peace talks and the discussions going on, may I ask the noble Lord why, according to the newspapers, should we seem to allow France to claim credit for it. Why do we not speak more loudly
1238
of the part that Britain has played? was very glad that the noble Lord did not fall into the trap so artfully set for him by the noble Lord, the ex-diplomat, on the other side. It would be disastrous if we started trying to decide which of the steps should be taken and in what order. Resolution 242 has lasted for a decade and is now the basis for peace talks, simply because it took care to be even-handed on that matter.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord George-Brown, a former Foreign Secretary and distinguished politician who has been pre-occupied with Middle East affairs. I would accept that Press comments give the impression that France was the only country that had taken the initiative and it ought to be stressed that we, the British, have played a major part. This is an all-Party issue, and I am sure the House would accept that.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, after having listened to what my noble friend has just said, is it not rather difficult to understand why at this particular time, instead of emphasising the resolution which has been explained and made clear on so many occasions, and instead of appearing to deviate from that and from Resolution 338, consideration should have been given to the past timing of the Statement? Does he realise that there are a very large number of people like myself who are very disturbed by the report which appeared in the Press and which we feel will give encouragement to those who are determined to destroy Israel? Would my noble friend make it clear that Resolutions 242 and 338 stand, and that there is no question of anything additional to them?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will give that assurance. Indeed, if my noble friend reads carefully the Statement which is in the Library he will see that it sets out that the Nine have stated on many occasions in the past, for example, on the 6th November 1973, 28th September 1976, and 7th December 1976, their view that a peace settlement should be based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and if I may repeat, on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force; the need for Isreal to end territorial

1239
occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967; respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the area—and I could go on repeating. I hope my noble friend will read that Statement. I have the two resolutions here from which it will be seen that there is no contradiction. We stand by our original policy.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend. The Foreign Minister is much to be congratulated on having left the main responsibility for this somewhat ignoble and oil-serving Statement to the French.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot agree with remarks like that.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like my noble friend to realise that none of us has yet had an opportunity of seeing the Statement. I was speaking about the statements which were made in the Press. It is important that the opponents of Isreal should not take advantage of any interpretation they put upon what has been said and given as a true report in the Press, which indicates that we are deviating in the slightest way from Resolutions 242 and 338.
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend has long experience as a politician. He knows the Press and that one cannot always accept what is said there. You have to make your own judgment when you have read the Statement in the Library.

GRUNWICK LIMITED: DISPUTED
4.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories Limited.
"During the past week or so I have had a number of meetings with the parties concerned. I have discussed the situation with the Managing Director
1240
of the company, Mr.Ward, and his advisers; and with the General Secretary of APEX, Mr.Grantham. I have attempted to explore with both sides how sufficient progress might be made towards resolving the issues in dispute and to defuse the explosive situations which exist on the picket line and elsewhere. These escalating troubles must be laid to rest before they do more damage.
"During the course of the discussions I considered very hard in what way progress might best be made. I formed the conclusion that, if the parties were able to give me certain assurances, I should appoint an independent mediator to investigate the circumstances of the dispute, to make recommendations to the parties, and to report to me. I wrote to Mr. Ward and Mr. Grantham last Friday to say that I would appoint a mediator if they would agree to co-operate with him and abide by his recommendations. The union was prepared to give me these assurances, but despite long discussions I have been unable to persuade Mr. Ward and his advisers to agree to abide by a mediator's recommendations.
"In view of this I have come to the conclusion, very regretfully, that the appointment of a mediator would not bring about any early progress. The Government have been considering what further steps might be taken, since it is clear that matters cannot be allowed to go on like this.
"I have, therefore, today appointed a Court of Inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act 1919. Its terms of reference are:—
'To inquire into the causes and circumstances of, and relevant to, the dispute, other than any matter before the High Court until the final determination of those proceedings, and to report'.
"These terms allow all the circumstances and issues involved to he examined, other than the ACAS recommendation on union recognition, the validity of which is being challenged by the company in High Court proceedings which begin next week.
"The Chairman of the Court of Inquiry will be the right honourable Lord Justice Scarman. The other

1241
members will be Mr.J. P. Lowry, Director of Personnel, British Leyland Limited and formerly Director of the Engineering Employer's Federation; and Mr.Terence Parry, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. I have asked the Court to begin its work with the greatest urgency.
"Courts of Inquiry under the 1919 Act are not set up lightly. This is only the second since 1972. But this has been a very long, bitter and damaging dispute, which still shows signs of widening.
"I believe that a Court of Inquiry is now the right course. Over the years, Courts of Inquiry have brought about the resolution of other disputes that were equally damaging and intractable.
"To do so the Court needs every possible help. First, it will be looking for full co-operation from the parties. I would urge them to give every assistance to the Court and help to expedite its proceedings.
"Secondly, and this is most important, it needs to be able to proceed in a reasonably calm atmosphere.
"Action by either party aimed at reinforcing entrenched positions including mass picketing or any other action that might lead to breaches of the law, does not help, and I would appeal to both APEX and Grunwick to consider whether their behaviour is calculated to increase the chances of achieving a peaceful solution of the dispute. I am well aware of the strength of feeling of both parties to the dispute, but I think I am entitled to urge this upon them and upon others involved. I would also hope that this appeal will have a full support of the TUC.
"Finally, the Court's attempt to seek a peaceful solution needs the full support of the whole House, and I am confident that this will be forthcoming. I hope that any statements made now or in the debate we are to have later will be of a kind that will help and not hinder this effort to find a peaceful solution".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.13 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, this is a very im-
1242
portant announcement and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having repeated it in this House. I am sure also that we should continue to be informed, step by step, of any matters of which the other place is also informed at the same time.
I certainly agree with the final paragraph of the Statement. Of course, we are not holding a debate here—a debate is being held in another place but that does not affect us—but I think it is very important that anything that is said in Parliament should be said in a tone, and perhaps in words, that do not inflame feelings on either side. I therefore want to be very careful about anything that I may say on the matter.
I did not myself anticipate the announcement of a court of inquiry but I am far from saying that it was not the only weapon left in the Government's locker, so I do not want to criticise. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to reply, could remind us exactly what the powers of such a court are. As he says, the appointment of one is slightly unusual in modern industrial practice—the Act, of course, dates back to 1919. Perhaps we can be told what will be the status of its report. To what extent will the report include, or be capable of including, recommendations, as distinct from findings of fact, and what powers of enforcement, if any, either during the proceedings or thereafter, exist? I think that the House would like to be informed about these matters because not everyone is fully aware of them.
I must say—and it is the only thing on which I think I can make a very positive contribution—that the noble and learned Lord and the Government could hardly have found a more acceptable chairman than Lord Justice Scarman. He really is an outstanding judge, and I think his contribution to the national life will increase as time goes on. Naturally enough, I wish the inquiry every possible success and I can at any rate speak as to the chairman, although I personally do not know the other very distinguished people involved. I am sure the Government have chosen the best possible chairman for this purpose.
My Lords, I myself rather wish that the appeal made to APEX and Grunwick in the eleventh paragraph of the Statement

1243
had extended more explicitly to other bodies concerned, because the situation has now developed well beyond the original disputants and I feel that it would have been helpful to have appealed more directly to those on one side or the other who have been encouraging activities which might inflame feelings, pending the hearings of this inquiry.
The noble and learned Lord and the House will have noted the rather serious statement made by the Master of the Rolls in a speech yesterday when he said, "The mobs are out". What had seemed to be a small dispute the size of a man's hand has now cast a shadow over the sky of the whole constitutional life of this country. We must hope and pray that the forces of decency and law will prevail in the end.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this Statement, and would certainly support the appeal contained in it for restraint by all parties in the period leading up to the time when the court sits, and also for full-co-operation with the court when it does sit. We note with interest that it was only yesterday that my honourable and learned friend in another place, Mr.Emlyn Hooson, said that there was a clear case for a totally independent inquiry into the state of affairs at the Grunwick factory. It is in the interests of all concerned that such an inquiry should take place. In these circumstances, it is right that we on these Benches should thank the Government for acting so very rapidly upon the proposal put forward by the Liberal Party.
If I may, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about one matter. Under Section 4 of the Industrial Courts Act 1919, the Minister, when he refers a matter to a court of inquiry, may refer any matters which appear to him to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute. May I ask whether any decision has yet been taken as to what are the matters which are relevant to, or connected with, this dispute? In particular, will those matters include certain areas where, clearly, the law is at the moment in a somewhat unsatisfactory state? These include the
1244
whole law of picketing and the question of the closed shop and the rights of individuals in certain circumstances to decline to join a trade union. Also, what are the powers of ACAS to carry out ballots in circumstances such as this? We would hope that the court of inquiry would have the widest possible powers to consider not simply the immediate area of this dispute but also a number of these controversial and highly relevant areas that are directly connected with it.
4.19 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which has been given to the proposal to set up a court of inquiry. Its aim is to find a peaceful solution to the painful situation which has arisen, and I am very happy to note from the tone and content of what has been said that your Lordships will certainly seek to further that aim. Of course, I forgive the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for claiming for the Liberal Party parenthood of this suggestion. I do assure him that it was something which was contemplated even before the observations made by Mr. Emlyn Hooson in another place.
But coming to the serious aspect of this matter—and I am grateful for the welcome of the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked about the status and powers of the court of inquiry. Its status is that of a statutory body, whose report will be made to both Houses of Parliament. It can make recommendations. The extent of compliance with those recommendations will depend upon whether those who are affected by them will recognise that those who constitute this court are men of great standing. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, Lord Justice Scarman is one of our most eminent judges, who has given great service to the State, and he is supported in this inquiry by two distinguished experts in the field of industrial relations—if I may say so, on both sides of the fence. Therefore, I would expect that any recommendations that emanate from this body will be accepted and followed up.
The court has power to order persons to attend and produce papers. In this field, there are no specific statutory powers, or powers in the field of contempt, but once again I would hope that the status of the

1245
body and its statutory position—the fact, as I say, that it will report to Parliament—will add up to full acceptance by all concerned of their duty to co-operate to the full with the court of inquiry. I agree with what has been said, that it is important to defuse the explosive situation that has arisen and I am satisfied that the terms of reference, which are very wide, will enable the court, if it thinks fit as I would expect—it will, of course, be for the court itself to determine what ground it should cover, whether it will deal precisely with the matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—to consider how the dispute began, the strike, the dismissals, the behaviour in an industrial relations sense of the union and the company, what next to do and matters of that kind. The terms of reference have been made deliberately wide, so that all of these matters may be considered; and I repeat the plea that has been made by the Secretary of State, that all that is necessary should now be done to restore calm to enable this inquiry to be conducted, and that those actions which have up till now been taken which have inflamed the situation should cease.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if I may just add to that my personal welcome for the setting up of the court and relieve the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack of any unhappiness, I called for this last Friday and I am very glad that both the Liberal Party and the Government have caught up with me in the course of little less than one week. But it was, I believe, the only step left that the Government could take. Of course, inevitably, there is a certain weakness in courts of inquiry, but having been involved with them and with the Act which set them up, I feel that there was nothing else the Government could do. As to membership, I, too, join in unreserved congratulations on securing the services of the chairman. But while, I hope, choosing my words as carefully as other noble Lords, I am a little surprised at the membership. I should not have thought that the past history of British Leyland's industrial relations was an outstanding recommmendation, and I am a little surprised about the Fire Brigades Union. But now that they have been appointed, one can only wish them both, with the chairman, the best of luck.
1246
What I really rose to put to the noble and learned Lord is perhaps something that can be put only from one on these Benches, and one can hardly expect him or the Minister to put it. But when we make a plea to both sides now to calm it and cease provocative actions, and let the court have the right atmosphere in which to proceed, what we really mean is that APEX and the TUC should call off mass picketing from any other unions with which they are associated. We also mean that those highly political advisers, who have gone in to help Mr.Ward—perhaps I should put the word, "help" in quotes—whose knowledge of industrial relations is, I should have thought, a good deal less than their knowledge of political issues, should now step down and then the issue will be able to be judged in the calm that it should have.
4.26 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that if the court of inquiry confines itself to the cause of the trouble, and seeks an urgent solution, that is one thing? But if it is to extend its range over the question of peaceful picketing et cetera it will raise a number of other important political issues that may cause further trouble? Is he further aware that there is a rumour in the City of London in business circles this morning that a number of very prominent businessmen, who are concerned about an extension of the dispute through the Post Office, electricity and in other important directions, are proposing to acquire an interest in the business and bring about an urgent solution of the problem? Is he aware of this rumour in the City of London in business circles, because, if he is not aware of it, I am.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am invited to answer that question. The answer is that I have no knowledge of these manoeuvres. If they are existing, I hope that they will cease. I detect that the message emanating from this House at this moment of time is "cool it", and that is the best atmosphere in which this court of inquiry can progress. I am delighted to judge, from yet another claimant to parenthood of this idea, that it must have a good deal of legitimacy. I think that the composition of the court is admirably suited for this situation, and I think that the best service we can

1247
now do to it is to wish it every success in its endeavours, which are to find a peaceful solution to the strike and not wander on a large academic range of investigation.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord just enlighten me on one point? How does this arrangement affect the court case, which I believe is going on at this moment, about the postal workers' interference with the mail going to Grunwick? Perhaps I ought to declare an interest in that my nephew by marriage happens to be the Director of the National Association for Freedom, and I know that there are various plans afoot for getting the mail through to Grunwick. How will the court case and other matters be affected by the Government's plans?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the position is that the terms of reference, which I read out, specifically exclude the matters which arise in the case before the High Court and there will be no clash. Of course, as Lord Justice Scarman is the Chairman, he will see that there is no overlapping with the issues that arise in the court proceedings.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that this tribunal of inquiry, constituted under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1919, is precisely the Act under which the Belcher Tribunal was constituted, upon which he conducted a campaign on injustice almost unparalleled, in my experience? Is he not aware—I am sure he is—that, time after time since then, we have raised the injustice and impracticability of the proceedings in this Act, which permit cross-examination without any direct relevance whatever to British laws of evidence on the asking of questions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hasten to reassure my noble friend that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, or the proceedings under that Act, so he can set aside forthwith his anxiety. The court is to be set up under the Industrial Courts Act 1919. The previous courts which have been set up under that Act have operated justly and fairly and have never been subject to the
1248
kind of criticisms which flowed from hearings under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.31 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1977,

Transport (Financial Provisions) Act 1977,

Neath Borough Council Act 1977,

Heritable Securities and Mortgage Investment Association, Limited Act, 1977,

Emu Wine Holdings Limited and Subsidiary Companies Act 1977,

Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL
4.32 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, coming to perhaps rather more contentious matters, first may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oram, upon what was a commendably brief exposition of his Bill. I am bound to say that I welcomed the lack of heat with which he performed his task. I listened with considerable interest to whatever justification he might bring forward for the introduction of his Bill which, no doubt, the Government hope will become an Act. If I say that to me, at any rate, the noble Lord was somewhat coy, it may well be that he had excellent reasons for adopting that particular stance.
At one moment in his speech the noble Lord said that this is a Bill to which the Government attach great importance; and indeed it is. However, when it first saw the light of day, the other place was told—and certainly the Press were told—that one of the principal ideas which motivated the Government was their attack on the still intolerably high rate of inflation. That has now more or less disappeared as one of the Government's arguments. Little

1249
reliance is placed upon it, although I shall come back to it a little later in my speech. However, what has certainly happened is that this Bill has aroused great anxiety in industry.
The objections of industry are that the Bill will do little to keep down prices but that it will do a lot to create uncertainty in industry and commerce. It is this state of uncertainty which is the principal line of objection and what noble Lords on this side of the House regard as so undesirable. Unless there is confidence in the world of business and, more especially, in industry, there is unlikely to be that degree of investment which alone, in the long term, can create industrial expansion and jobs and bring down the present record levels of unemployment. Unless the economic situation of the country becomes more settled—unless, indeed, the pound remains steady—there is little hope, bearing in mind matters that are outwith the control of the Government (and among these I include the price of raw materials which are imported mostly from abroad) that the rate of inflation can be brought down to a satisfactory level.
I say this because, I repeat, important though the Government regard their Bill, the greatest misgivings have been vouch-safed by industry. I wish, in a way, that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, had mentioned them and at least tried in some way or another to show that these misgivings were either without foundation or at least did not need to have placed upon them the importance which they assume. It is also a pity that so far, at any rate, there are no Back-Bench speakers from the Government side of the House; nobody has put down his name to speak. From what I read, I gather that the TUC played a leading part in the thinking behind the Bill and a leading part not so far behind the scenes during its passage in the other place. It is a matter of regret that noble Lords on the Benches opposite, with a wealth of experience of both the unions and industry, are not here to give us the benefit of their advice and experience and to allay our fears.
When I came down from Scotland this morning and heard on the radio that a certain body of opinion of noble Lords opposite wished to disfranchise me, I hurried to get the report of the Working
1250
Party. I see that the Working Party, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, says:
"We propose a system of voting Peers limited as to numbers and reflecting in their selection the Party balance in the House of Commons. This, together with the proposals for the composition of the House, would end, once and for all, the in-built one-Party domination in the second Chamber".
It will be an ill day for the future of this House and for the country if there is to be substituted for debate the clump-clump of the feet of voting Peers nominated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
It is quite certain that the only way in which this Bill can control inflation is by reducing profits. Therefore the first question one has to ask oneself when considering the matter is whether the level of profits before tax and interest is too high, speaking generally, throughout industry. The rate of return on capital has been steadily declining since the 1960s. in that decade it averaged, I believe, about 11 per cent. Last year I believe it was about 3½ per cent. This figure is generally regarded as being much too low. I believe that the Government acknowledge this fact. Indeed, official thinking is that a higher level of profits is needed to produce more investment and more jobs. What is incontrovertible is that if the general rate of profits is too low, the prospects for investment and job creation, the containment of inflation and a rising standard of living are indeed bleak. So we can forget any intention on the part of the Government that this Bill on its own will have any material effect on prices or on anything else. Indeed, the Secretary of State conceded, in effect, in the other place, that if this Bill had been in force soon after the Labour Government took office three years ago its effect on price rises would have been minimal.
Then we turn to the argument that the Bill will provide some form of lever, if that is the right word, for helping to continue a measure of wage restraint. It is not, I suggest, profitable at present to speculate upon the likely character of any new agreement or Phase 3, if ever it should exist in a meaningful form at some time in the future. Even if a meaningful wages policy is hammered out, I suggest that this Bill will have no more than a cosmetic effect on such negotiations, because it is

1251
clear that only a certain number of investigations into specific price increase proposals will take place each year. If the Secretary of State was right when he said that an effective, socially responsive firm has nothing to fear in the future—and I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, agrees that the vast majority of manufacturing and distributing firms in this country come into that category—then the effect of the Bill will be minimal.
It seems to me, and indeed to others, that the real motivation for the introduction of this Bill is that it gives the Government the opportunity to produce the means for permanent Government intervention within industry, and indeed I do not think it unfair to say that the Secretary of State not only said as much but gloried in it. No doubt there is a sense of disappointment on the part of the Government that planning agreements which it was thought would have a desirable effect, at least from the Government point of view, have not worked and they do not exist. Equally no doubt it is hoped that this Bill will achieve much the same ends by a somewhat different route.
What I suggest is really intended is that this Bill should become part of the Government's permanent powers which they will use in both the fields of competition and monopolies, and also to control sectors of industry. But it is not suggested that even when prices are brought under control the power to investigate them should end. Indeed, it is proposed that they should continue into the future. But it is suggested that such powers should exist and should be used to promote competitive efficiency and to influence to some degree industrial performance.
It is this charter—if I may so call it—for permanent Government snooping into areas which should be outside their everyday concern which gives rise to our opposition to this Bill. Let me make it plain. I believe noble Lords on these Benches are not opposed in principle to the control of prices in the short term for specific purposes or reasons, but bearing in mind that control of prices can never be wholly effective in this country, relying as we do so heavily on imported foods and raw materials, such control must of necessity be short term.
1252
Equally the distortion of profits through price control is bound to make for a stagnant economy and limit the creation of wealth. One of the matters which we so often complain about is that this Government and those who support them are far too concerned to slice the cake and far too little concerned to increase its size. I suggest that the mixed economy demands the maximum flexibility in the allocation of resources in order to meet changing demands, and a lack of flexibility merely limits the redistribution of resources according to national and international demands. Equally I should make it plain that where a firm takes unfair advantage of its competitive position, more especially if it is in what might be termed a monopoly situation, any Government must be in a position to correct any abuses which may occur. I do not think that is altogether a contentious statement on my part. I think nobody on this side of the House would disagree with that philosophy.
If this Bill was called, for instance, the Fair Trading (Amendment) Bill, if it was designed to fortify the powers of the Office of Fair Trading, or more especially the Monopolies Commission, so that all the Government's power in respect of what I might term competition policy was contained in one Act and exercised by one body, that would be an objective which would command at least some degree of sympathy. Whereas the noble Lord says that one day we shall have some sort of consolidation Act to make sense out of the various measures since 1973 and which, as he himself has said, make for rather difficult reading of this latest attempt, that does nothing so far as this Bill is concerned to, as it were, make one body where at the moment, and under the terms of this Bill, three will exist. In my submission, what the Bill does is to introduce a new body which will exist alongside the other two and which will have a responsibility which is bound in some degree to overlap the other two. It will be a further measure of bureaucracy which, as I tried to show, will have little effect on prices and none on efficiency, except some effect which may well be detrimental.
I do not intend to go into any of the detailed provisions of the Bill because, after all, this is a Second Reading debate on the principles of the Bill and the motivation

1253
of the Government which has prompted its introduction. So far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, we shall not seek to delay the Bill, either unduly or at all. We take the noble Lord's point that it has already had an airing in the other place—I was going to say, ad nauseam, but I had better not. It has already had an airing in the other place, although whether 28 or 29 concentrated hours on the trot is the best way to ventilate and discuss Parliamentary business is not perhaps for me to say.
On these Benches we believe that there are a number of distinct drawbacks to the Bill which will operate unduly harshly on industry. For instance, we think there should be some sort of annual review which will monitor both the performance of the Price Commission and, more especially, of the Secretary of State. We think that there are a number of facets of the Bill which will tend to operate harshly and unfairly on companies which find themselves the recipient of an inquiry on the part of the Price Commission. We shall try to make the Government think again in an endeavour to remove such areas of unfairness, but we shall not have an all night sitting, unless the Government make such a nonsense of their other business that there is no other time in which to consider this Bill.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, from these Benches we give our support to this Bill for two major reasons—the contributions that it makes to two areas of policy to which we attach the very greatest importance. In the first place is the contribution which we believe it can make to obtaining, and continuing to obtain—and I underline "continuing to obtain"—an effective pay policy. It was said in another place and it has been implied by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the effect of this Bill on pay policy would be very slight. I think it has been accepted by all Parties that, if a prices policy can indeed produce a satisfactory pay policy, then that is a price that is worth paying, even for those who are opposed to the policy as a whole.
I gather there is a suspicion that no such satisfactory pay policy is likely to emerge, and that if it does emerge it will be short
1254
lived. I believe the importance of this Bill in relation to pay has not perhaps been fully grasped in the context of the changing kind of pay policy that we shall certainly get, if not this year then in the years to follow. We on these Benches believe that it is of the greatest importance that we should continue to have restraint in pay. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said this Bill would not cure inflation. Of course it will not, but if it enables a check to be made on inflationary pay claims, then indirectly it will be contributing in an important way towards the control of inflation. I say that it is in the changing context of pay policy that this Bill is of particular importance for this reason.
For the last two years, until now, we have had a very rigid form of pay control negotiated through the mechanism of the Social Contract. It is quite clear that even if we get a Phase 3 it will not be in those terms, not in terms of the same kind of rigidity, the same kind of inflexible policy we have had over the last two years. This is apparent from the reaction that has already come from the TUC. The point I want to make is that it is not only the trade unions who do not want a very inflexible pay policy; it is the companies, the employers, the managers themselves who do not want that very rigid pay policy to continue year after year. Anyone who is at all acquainted with what is going on inside enterprises knows the manifold difficulties at various levels which flow from the application over a two-year period of great rigidity and pay restraint. Therefore, we are not going to get the same kind of agreement we have had in the past.
And yet we must have pay restraint. This means that pay restraint must come because the rank and file in industry are converted to the idea that inflationary pay settlements are, in the long run, highly undesirable for them as well as for the country as a whole. Pay restraint cannot be enforced any longer in rigid terms from the centre. It has to be controlled by consent from the grass roots. It seems to me there is not the faintest hope that you are going to get public opinion to back restraint in pay claims—by "public opinion" I mean not merely the leaders but the generality of employed persons—not just this year or next year, but as a continuing process, unless they believe that there is also power to control prices.

1255
It may be that this Commission will not do anything very much in terms of controlling prices. But it is there. It means that you can say to people, when you are asking them to see that their pay claims are kept within reasonable bounds, that if indeed prices take off there is a mechanism for seeing that they are controlled. This is in terms of developing the kind of pay policy which, in our view, needs to be a permanent part of national policy; one which can only operate with the flexibility which is seen to be essential on both sides of industry. It can only operate permanently and flexibly if it has widespread support, and that support will come only if there is on the other side a mechanism for controlling prices. For this reason, if for no other, we would go along with this policy, with this Bill.
Our second reason for supporting the Bill is that it seems to us to be an instrument for a competition policy, for a more effective development of a more efficient economy in both the public and private sectors. It was made quite clear in the debates in another place, and it is also plain in the Bill itself, that this is the second very important purpose of this piece of legislation. We on these Benches have always been and remain firm supporters of the market economy, and the market economy within a mixed economy. We are delighted to see in this Bill what seems to us to be the reconversion of the Government to the idea of the mixed economy, which they are now apparently prepared to back in terms of legislation of this sort. Let me admit that there have been times when we doubted whether the Government really did believe in a mixed economy, really did believe in the promotion of competition. We have always assumed—though there have been moments when we have doubted it—that the Opposition believed in competition and the market economy. Doubts about the Government's determination to pursue that policy have arisen from time to time in our minds.
But, my Lords, it would surely be naive in the extreme to think that nowadays the market economy operates entirely freely to see that resources are allocated as they should be, and that the consumer gets a fair deal as a result of the operation of the market. That was at best, or at worst, according to your point of view,
1256
a 19th century dream. We all know that it does not happen like that in these days of, not only monopoly, which is relatively easy to recognise, but of all those shades of oligopoly which limit the effective working of the market mechanism. If you want competition to work, if you want an effective mixed economy, then you have to see to it that these oligopolistic tendencies do not so weaken the operation of the market that competition is not a reality.
Those who are opposing the development of a competition policy, opposing the need for some Governmental instrument to see that it takes place, have to answer two questions. Why has the market system in this country not operated more effectively than it has done over the last 30 or 40 years? None of us can pretend that with our growth rates, our overseas trading record, we are a great demonstration of how well the market system, left to itself, has been working. They will also have to say why so many other countries which believe, as we do, in the mixed economy and in the operation of the market also have mechanisms for intervention in relation to prices. It is well known that in most, if not all, of the free market countries of the Western World such mechanisms do exist.
So we welcome the Bill for these two reasons. Of course there are doubts; there have been and still are legitimate doubts in the minds of persons who would be affected by this legislation. One of the doubts, which I must say I shared when I first examined this Bill, is the degree of arbitrariness of the powers left to the Commission to make its decisions within the framework of the proposed legislation. "Why pick on me?" Why is this particular concern to be investigated?" Then, what are the criteria by which the Commission will decide that a particular price increase is or is not justified? This was a question which was raised by many people with whom I have discussed this matter. I think I am satisfied by the answer, that you have no choice. In this Bill the Government wish to get rid of the system of the code, a detailed rigid code; that has been the practice for price control in the past. A code is complicated, it is elaborate, it takes up a great deal of time, a great deal of paperwork; it leads to a great deal of argument, and inevitably it becomes out

1257
of date. There is a rigidity; it tends to be frozen, and as time moves on and circumstances change, a code becomes less and less appropriate as an instrument for deciding what should be done.
If you reject the whole approach of a code, for the reasons I have given, there is no option, if you are going to have any kind of control at all, but to give to the people who are operating the system a degree of freedom of judgment which is the opposite of the rigidity of the code. You need to have flexibility, which may well lead to the question, "How will they make up their minds? How can we be sure that the decisions they make are right?" You either have to say: "We are prepared to leave it to the judgment of the Commission", or you have to settle for codes, with all the limitations and disadvantages that they bring.
When you are choosing to leave it to the Commission to use its judgment, there are, it seems to me, two safeguards which should satisfy some, at least, of those who express anxiety under this head. One, surely, is the names of the people chosen to man the Commission, people of very great experience—at least most of them are who have so far been named—in the world of industry, finance and commerce. This should be some reassurance that at least they will have a deep grasp and wide understanding of the problems of the concerns which they are investigating. The other safeguards are to be found in Clause 2 which lays down—it is true in general terms, but inevitably surely in an Act in general terms—the criteria which justify both investigation and control. It may be that on Second Reading ideas will be brought forward for strengthening Clause 2, though I do not propose to do so. Even as it stands, Clause 2 gives substantial ground for reassurance to those who fear that the Commission can operate in an arbitrary manner.
There is also the fear that has been raised from the Opposition Benches that the existence of the Commission, with the power to investigate, will have a deterrent effect on industry, will limit investment and, by limiting investment, will harm the prosperity of the country and harm the consumer; and this, after all, is primarily a consumer Bill. When one looks at the criteria in Clause 2 and sees the scale of investigation that is
1258
likely to take place—it has been suggested that about 40 cases a year will be the sort of level of operation—surely it is not unreasonable to say that any organisation which is operating in a reasonably efficient manner, which is not abusing its market position or which knows that it has so small a share of the market that it can defend its case in straight market terms, has very little to fear. It seems to be a very exaggerated argument that because of the possibility of investigation, given the safeguards and the setup that is outlined in the Bill, a large number of organisations will be so fearful of investigation that they will hold back from the development of their businesses. It is possible that that will be the case in some circumstances, but as a general problem for the country as a whole, affecting the development of the economy overall, that surely is a very exaggerated case which is being advanced.
However, we on these Benches would join with the Opposition in the objection to yet a third body. After all, we already have the Monopolies Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. Why on earth do we need a third body on top of those others? It would add to the bureaucracy, complexity and cost. If it is suggested that we need a sharp instrument to help make for more effective competition in this country, I would point out that that is something that we on these Benches have asked for not recently but over decades.
I agree that it is not in the Bill, but can we not have confidence in the statement made by the Secretary of State in the debate last week in another place in which he said, in response to an Amendment urging that the Price Commission should be merged with the Monopolies Commission, that we should move towards a single body:
"… which has the power to present mergers when they are socially undesirable, the power to break up monopolies when they are similarly found to he against the public interest, the power to take action against agreements for restraint of trade, and the power to attack what the hon. Member for Colne Valley rightly called the symptom of that condition which is unreasonable price increases".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/77, col. 1575.]
The Secretary of State has not put a time on it, but there he has given an undertaking that we shall move towards this single body with improved powers to

1259
control monopoly—I am not being critical of the present Monopolies Commission, but it does take between three and three and a half years to produce a report—and deal more widely with matters which inhibit the really effective working of competition.
We must believe that the Secretary of State means that steps will be taken, and taken soon to move in that direction. We on these Benches support the Bill in the belief that that will happen. We intend to keep reminding Her Majesty's Government that this has been promised to us and should take place.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am not an economist, but I speak today in a dual capacity. I was the chairman of the first Consumer Council and I know how apprehensive all housewives are about price rises, particularly those affecting the cost of food. Being a producer in particular of agricultural products, I know how hopeless it is if the cost of production and the sale of products do not pay or leave only a small margin of profit. How to reconcile these conflicting interests is largely what this Bill is about.
However, I believe that there is more trouble for the Government—any Government—when prices decrease and the demand for subsidies increases than when industry or agriculture makes profits and the State in consequence benefits by taxation and by those profits. There is no doubt that there is heavy pressure today from all the unions, and we appreciate that that is a pretty formidable matter with which the Government must deal. But to prevent profits also prevents wages increasing and, as we all know, there must be some wage increases. In the long run, everyone benefits from profitability. Loss discourages everyone and costs the Government a great deal of money. I am afraid that some aspects of the Bill may well discourage rather than encourage industry.
I was brought up with a very old principle, which no longer operates—namely, freedom of trade. It is no longer sponsored by any political Party, not even by the Party of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, from which I sprang in my early life.
1260
But freedom to trade in all markets, both here and abroad, is still vital. If there is no profit in it and there is so much control, it will not succeed, and that would be disastrous.
The Price Code is a restrictive measure and a somewhat uncertain one as regards producers, as only the Commission can decide the policy which governs the Price Code. The market price—whether through auctions, as in agriculture, in retail competition or in other ways—enables the sellers to estimate the market fluctuations. Although this is a variable figure, given the freedom to make profits and the chance of competition, the manufacturer must take the drop himself, if it comes—not subsidies from the Government.
I agree with those who say that under this new proposal Parliament should have the right annually to review the discussions of the Price Commission. My noble friend Lord Mansfield made that point very strongly, and I entirely agree with him. As most prices fluctuate, particularly prices of food and seasonal products, to try to keep prices at the same level all the year round would defeat its own ends, and sometimes I believe it might even keep prices up rather than let them find their own level. To prevent by whatever means companies from making profits is a hopeless method, and will not enable companies to expand or to develop, nor enlarge their plant or machinery, nor create more employment.
Those are the principles which I am quite sure will lead to prosperity in this country. If this Bill hampers that in any way it will not be to the advantage of the country. This Bill was debated at great length in another place. As my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, I hope that in this House, we have no intention of opposing it as was done in another place, but we could improve it by Amendments, and I hope that we shall show our views in this way and have the opportunity of discussing it clause by clause in order to improve the Bill which we have before us now.
5.11 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am afraid that this is a Nosey Parker Bill, and one cannot really like it, although there are good reasons for it. I am heartened by the fact that in another place there were many areas in which the

1261
Government appeared quite conciliatory, and indeed in some cases acted in a conciliatory fashion. I hope—particularly as we have the noble Lord, Lord Oram, whom we know is such a friend of us all, taking the Bill from the Benches opposite to us—that we might be able to carry this a bit further.
With that in mind I looked slightly closely to see what areas looked as though they had a prospect of agreement within them. It seemed to me that one such point was that there was an agreement between us—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Oram, almost said as much in his speech earlier on—in the need for powers to investigate the prices of businesses in a monopoly or near monopoly situation. I think we would agree with that. In fact, I could go on to quote from the Minister of State in another place, who said, on 21st June, among other things, at column 1187 of the Official Report:
"We need those powers to sharpen competition and to protect the consumer from the abuses that flow from lack of competition".
I think that we would entirely agree with that, and no doubt the Liberals, if the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was still with us, would endorse that. In passing, perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend Lady Elliot that the noble Baroness may not now agree with free trade but she certainly agrees with freedom of movement.
Going on to quote from the Minister of State—and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, rather confirmed this—he said at column 1188:
"I hope that my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State will make clear that we do not see a permanent separation of the identity and existence of the work of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that of the Price Commission".
It would seem from that that the Government are well on the way to agreeing with us that a separate Price Commission as a permanent basis is probably one which we would not press for. So perhaps it might be that the Government would go with us in concentrating on this business of protecting the consumer from the abuses that flow from lack of competition.
It would be churlish of me to point out in too great detail that most of the abuses flowing from lack of competition are in the sacred cows of the Party opposite—the nationalised industries. It
1262
is perhaps they who need to have their prices watched, as we have learned in the case of the gas industry in the very recent past. We would not expect the Government rapidly to sweep away the nationalised industries, but perhaps we can see them agreeing to proposals for examining from time to time the usefulness of the Price Commission as a separate statutory body. It could perhaps be that they would look kindly on possible Amendments which worked in that direction.
Another area in which there might be agreement between us is in making modifications to the safeguards established under Clause 9, of which a draft has been published, and more meaningfully to the Bill itself, to take account of swingeing increases in the costs of raw materials, especially in relation to the food and drink industries. I expect your Lordships are aware that the prices of raw materials, on which we have to depend because we are not self-sufficient in this country in an agricultural way, have lately been going up so dramatically that on the shape of what is likely in the future, let alone what has happened in the past, it is very possible for an increase of the final product to have to go up by more than 5 per cent. in as short a period as six months. If, therefore, any business on an annual rate can only expect to make a profit of the order of 10 per cent., it is going to find itself in a position not to be able to make any profit at all if in six months it is going to have a raw material price which will put it up by 5 per cent. That is common arithmetic.
In fact, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, the rate of profit which is being made by many industries is nowadays nearer 3 per cent., which means in effect that raw materials without price adjustments over a period of as little as six months can cause a small company to go out of business completely. I know that the small companies are not the ones which the Price Commission will be invited to investigate, or would take the initiative in investigating, in the normal course. Thye will go for the bigger companies; perhaps the market leaders. But when they do this, the market leaders will inevitably set the pattern for the industry concerned, and the result will be that the smaller companies will have to follow them, and the smaller companies

1263
will be the ones who take the rub and have not got the resources to overcome this sort of trouble.
It is for that reason that the ability of the Price Commission to impose a price freeze during investigation—particularly as the investigation may turn out to prove nothing other than that the company is being perfectly sensible and a freeze is not necessary—and a freeze which can be applied in effect for at least four months, and maybe longer, will create a condition in the market which can put in severe jeopardy, possibly not the biggest companies which may have extra resources (though even they are going to find it difficult), but, very much, the smaller companies who had resources perhaps five and six years ago but have gradually had them eroded by various policies that have been applied in the last five or six years. This is a serious issue, on which one would hope that the Government will go with us in making sure that there are sufficient safeguards, and possibly—as the Secretary of State has said many times he will not—relent on their insistence that freezing must be applied when an investigation is taking place.
If your Lordships will allow, I should like to spell out in a little detail why it is that controls are not really of any practical value in holding down the prices of the more common processed foods. What I am attempting to point out is that not only are we under threat from the actual provisions of the Bill, but in fact experience during the last five years has shown that such price controls as we have had have had no effect at all except to create extra labour for the people who have to apply them, and extra costs which, in due course, put prices up rather than put them down. Before I do so, I must declare an interest as the Director of the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, the trade association looking after the interests of the cake and biscuit manufacturers. For this reason, my examples will relate to biscuits, but the principles they show can be taken to apply to most processed foods.
There is no evidence that price controls have held down the prices of biscuits more effectively in recent years than market forces have done by themselves. On the other hand, price controls have in the short-term added a considerable
1264
administrative burden and cost to manufacturers and have increased the complexity and uncertainty of forward planning.
The key factors governing pricing decisions in the biscuit trade are, first, costs; secondly, the need to maintain margins for ploughing back into the business; and, thirdly, the desire to maintain the value for money of biscuits relative to other foods. The first two points need little comment. It is well-known that costs have risen sharply, have continued to do so and that previous and present price control procedures have not made adequate allowance for all cost increases to be recouped or indeed to be reflected quickly enough to maintain the necessary margins in the short-term.
Little however has been said about the third point. The fact is that biscuit manufacturers, in common with other food manufacturers, have always been acutely aware of the need to maintain the value for money of their products in relation to alternative purchases, as seen by the consumer. The point is that the competition is not only within the manufacture of one particular product but is also between that product and others which the consumer may buy in lieu. For example, if biscuit prices go too high while bread does not concurrently do the same people, may buy more bread and less biscuits. The biscuit industry's substantial tonnage was built up on this basis. There is clear evidence that when prices rise disproportionately in relation to other foods, volume—that is, sales—suffers accordingly, and there is a very direct relationship in the biscuit industry between volume and profitability. Volume, I should explain, is a phrase covering both sales volume and manufacturing capacity. Hence, on occasions when tax or cost increases have made chocolate biscuit prices rise out of line with other products, their tonnage has declined markedly—as in 1962–63 and in 1974–75—and this has affected the total market.
Up to, and particularly during, 1973, biscuit market volume was on a stable healthy footing while prices rose less than other foods. Chocolate biscuits were especially buoyant in 1973, with artificially low prices. Prices were frozen from November 1972, just when they were

1265
about to go up, then in April 1973 tax was removed. Hence, in the short-term chocolate biscuits became much better value to the consumer; volume rose by 20 per cent. or more and manufacturers could not meet demand. From mid-1973 prices were allowed to rise and, with ingredient costs escalating, they went up sharply. Tax was reimposed in April 1974, exacerbating the situation, and volume was immediately and severely reversed.
The severe price rises of 1974–75 resulted in a drop in consumption of about 7 per cent. in 1975, concentrated however on the higher priced lines, particularly chocolate, which declined by 20 per cent, to 30 per cent. It should be noted that these very steep price rises occurred while price controls were operating and it is most unlikely that if there had been no controls manufacturers would have risked putting up prices further at that time because, as I have attempted to explain, to do so would have reduced sales even further.
In 1976, as biscuit price inflation dropped below that of related foods, consumption and market tonnage began to recover. With more difficult trading conditions in the last three to four years, biscuit manufacturers have endeavoured to maintain volume, and hence profit, by introducing smaller packet sizes and by developing lower-price ranges and have been largely successful in these aims. This is further proof of the significance of relative food values in efficient manufacturers' planning processes, and noble Lords will have noted that emphasis was laid on efficiency by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—indeed, it is mentioned in the Bill. It is efficiency which I have just been talking about; adjustment to meet the market as it occurs.
If anything, the presence of price control mechanisms and the uncertainty which these have brought in recent years, with the ever-present threat of tighter controls, of freezes, have led manufacturers to take whatever price rises they could justify in the short-term whenever there have been cost increases. As a result, what has tended to happen is a less smooth, more concentrated and exaggerated series of price increases than would have occurred if manufacturers had been able to adjust prices solely
1266
according to the normal market-place and competitive considerations.
Noble Lords will see from this brief view of the effect of price controls on a typical food item that they have no effect on keeping prices down, but they add to overall costs in administration and distort such price adjustments as are made necessary by increasing the costs of manufacture. I would not argue at this time for no price controls at all for all food products because, sadly—and I think erroneously—people in the country have been led to believe that they have some effect on keeping down the retail price index.
I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made great play of this point and emphasised that one of the main reasons why the Liberal Party were supporting the Bill was because they saw it as the only way of convincing people that they should restrain their wages. I suggest that people in this country are not as stupid as all that; they could surely realise that there are better ways of controlling prices, as I have endeavoured to show, than in statutory controls the effect of which may be very damaging to business and, in turn, to labour prospects.
It would seem to me that what we would be much better advised to do—perhaps not immediately because so much propaganda has gone into the benefits of price control; here I am not particularly blaming the Party opposite because my noble colleagues in the past have been just as enthusiastic in imposing price controls—is to accept that experience has shown that this is not the way to restrain prices. So, if it is necessary to produce some bargaining element when one is talking to people about restraining wages, probably the best bargaining element is for the Government to promise to cut their cloth according to their means, which indeed they are trying to do, or saying they are trying to do, and one hopes that they could demonstrate that continuingly and point out that this is the way in which the greatest contribution to reducing inflation will occur.
What I think is reasonable is that we should endeavour to educate the country into understanding that prices are best controlled by a free market and that if we need any form of control it should be

1267
applied to those businesses which have a near monopoly situation. As I said earlier, I think that the Minister of State was going a long way with us in his various speeches, but I am a little concerned about the Secretary of State, who, it seemed to me, made some very frightening speeches at both Second and Third Reading in another place. I would hope that all he was doing was putting on a front so as to appear to be a hard man, in order to appease the distressed British "Lefties" whom the poor Labour Party still has around its neck as ballast to keep it in Parliament. Let us hope that, when it comes to the point in this House, the views expressed by the Minister of State are the ones which will prevail in giving advice to the noble Lords opposite, and that the Secretary of State's contribution is treated as being just a bit of light relief to encourage the troops.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord's flow of argument earlier, but I wish to refer to the fact that he made an assertion that the average rate of profit is 3 per cent.— but 3 per cent. of what? Is it 3 per cent. of capital employed, or 3 per cent, of turnover? I think that that assertion needs some explanation, and so I should be glad if the noble Lord opposite would explain precisely what he meant by his statement on average rate of profit.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords; I was, in fact, talking about 3 per cent. of capital employed.
5.31 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, when introducing the Bill made the point that he and his colleagues regarded it as a very important Bill. I would agree with him on that. Therefore, I was rather surprised when I saw the very small number of noble Lords who had put down their names to speak in this important debate. Looking through the list of speakers, I think that I am right in saying that I am the only speaker who can claim to have been a manufacturer during a great deal of his career. But, regrettably, under the rule of three score years and ten, which applies whether one looks in the psalms or in the Companies' Act, I am no longer in that position, and therefore have no interest to declare.
1268
Accordingly, I shall come to one or two points which seem to me very important. As I think my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood pointed out, we are none of us pleased when we go into a shop to buy something, only to find that what we want to buy has gone up considerably in price since we were last there. Without pausing to think, we at once tend to blame the poor manufacturer—and we may even use an unparliamentary word before the word "manufacturer"—for trying to make, as one often hears it said, "immoral" profits out of the pockets of the poor customer. Alternatively, we may condemn the distributor for adding indecent mark-ups.
Had we stopped to think, we might have remembered how commodity prices, wages, and the high cost of many services affect prices. All are largely outside the control of manufacturers. We might also have reflected on the time that the effect of many of these things takes to filter through to the goods actually on the shelves in the shops. Had we been prepared to probe just a little deeper and to examine some figures—and here I am coming to the point that was raised a moment ago when my noble friend Lord Mottistone sat down—we should have found that, whereas in the 1960s the average return on capital of industrial and commercial companies, on a replacement cost basis and before tax and interest, was about 11 per cent., the figure for 1976 was that which was quoted a moment ago of 3½ per cent. I hope that I have made it exactly clear to what the 3½ per cent. in fact related.
Clearly the case for continued price control cannot rest on excessive profits, nor indeed on any lack of competition, when, for the vast majority of markets, competitive pressures are considerable, particularly in many of the more essential markets which influence the retail cost of living index. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will, when he replies, no doubt confirm that, on more than one occasion, spokesmen for Her Majesty's Government have argued—and rightly so—that as part of their so-called industrial strategy profits must be allowed to increase to provide the funds for increased investment.
I assume that the Bill must therefore be within the scope of that general policy.

1269
In other words, the Bill cannot have the purpose of reducing profits and profitability. One is therefore forced to the conclusion that the case for the Bill is in no way economic, but rather is political, and, I would add, political on two counts. The first count is that it is a gesture—a quid pro quo, or whatever one likes to call it—for continued pay restraint. Human nature being what it is (and it is often very gullible) and bearing in mind the importance of establishing a Phase 3, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has referred, I am prepared to accept the quid pro quo argument, however regretfully. However, I accept it conditionally. The condition that, as I see it is needed to make the purpose of, or the case for, the Bill really credible is that the Bill (or the Act when it becomes an Act) should become operative only if, and when, a Phase 3 really does emerge on a generally acceptable basis. By a "generally acceptable basis", I mean at any rate a basis which would be generally acceptable to, for instance, the CBI. A further part of the condition would be that the Bill should last no longer than Phase 3, or possibly, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested, if there were to be what, for want of a better phrase, I would call Phase 4, or Phase 5, the Bill should last only as long as that lasts. But, as has been clearly pointed out, that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says quite categorically—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said this himself—that it is designed to go on indefinitely.
That brings me to my second political point. I have no doubt that the present members of the Commission—and I noted what was said about the new chairman being mentioned just a week or so back—are very respected, sensible individuals who can be relied upon to do their best and to make wise, sensible, unbiased decisions. But members of the Commission will come and go. They are appointed by a political Secretary of State—I am not saying anything about the present Secretary of State—and Secretaries of State come and go, too. It is all too easy to see how the Bill, when it becomes an Act, could be used as an instrument to gain more and more control over private industry.
My Lords, let me explain how I see the matter working out. Assisted by inflation, profits could be gently and quietly
1270
brought down to a level which was quite incapable of providing resources for essential investment. So, what would happen? A generous Government would come forward with a tantalising offer of cash, provided, perhaps, under the Industry Act or the NEB, but with strings; and those strings would progressively enmesh the company concerned in the Whitehall web. While, in so doing, this might well achieve the purpose of some (although, I suggest, not all) noble Lords on the opposite side, it could, in my view, all too easily, in time, provide a sedative to enterprise, and therefore clamp down competitiveness, which I think is the most important point of the whole issue, and therefore be adverse to improving employment.
For that kind of argument I should like to see the Bill definitely limited to a term of 12 months. That may be something of a pipedream; but, failing that, at any rate I should like to see it, as other noble Lords have said, subject to renewal, perhaps by Order in Council, on an annual basis, so that, at least, year by year Parliament can keep the matter under review and see how things are going along. Especially is that important—again referring to a point which my noble friends have made—where you have an agency such as the Commission, with such a very wide degree of discretion.
My Lords, there is one further point I want to make. I do not think it is a Committee point, though it may come up again when we discuss the Bill in Committee. Under Clause 5(3) companies can be prevented from putting up their prices while they are being investigated. This looks to me dangerously like treating a company as guilty until it has been proved to be innocent. In practice, it could be extremely damaging, and certainly, in my view, it needs amending. But, my Lords, that clause does something else which worries me quite a lot. It panders to the rather nasty, if prevelant, point of view that manufacturers as a class are inconsiderate tycoons, seeking only their own profit regardless of the interests of anyone else. Of course there are black sheep in every flock: there are black sheep in the manufacturers' flock, there are black sheep in the trade union flock. But in my view the average manufacturer is a good, responsible citizen. He is anxious to do his best, often under great difficulties

1271
—to do his best for his employees, for his customers, for his shareholders and for his suppliers. He is jealous of his own good name and of the quality of his products. He is proud of his plant and is anxious to invest in it to improve it still more; and he is proud of his company's contribution to the national good.
I am afraid this is not always the picture of manufacturers which is painted by the political cartoonists; yet I feel it to be far more often the case than otherwise. This Bill does not encourage the picture of manufacturers that I myself have tried to paint. Nor does it make one think that that is necessarily the view of manufacturers taken by Her Majesty's Government. I hope I am absolutely wrong when I say that. At any rate, my Lords, I have given the noble Lord, Lord Oram, an opportunity to put the record straight, and I hope he will do so.
5.45 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, many interesting and a number of controversial points have been raised in the debate. I shall not be able to deal with them all, of course, but I shall do my best; and, if I may, I will take the speeches almost entirely in the order in which they were made, dealing first with that of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He called me coy in relation to the importance of this Bill. Of course, we all prefer our own adjectives for our own description, but I would have thought I was balanced and realistic in summing up the importance of this Bill. I did not over-exaggerate its importance because, although I believe it to be a most important anti-inflation measure, I stressed in my opening speech that it is to be seen only in conjunction with other measures. In itself, no one is claiming that this will overcome inflation, but it is a most important part of the general strategy for overcoming inflation.
I wonder whether I may use an adjective, without any offence, about the noble Earl. I thought he was sober in his approach to this Bill, certainly by comparison with the more excitable leadership which has characterised the debates in another place; and I welcomed the general tone of his speech, even though, obviously, I did not welcome all its content. He complained that the Bill would lead to uncertainty in
1272
industry. I believe he was fully and adequately answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who pointed out that within the criteria which are set out in Clause 2, within the safeguards which are to be provided and within the general range of procedures which are laid down, there is ample assurance to industry that there will not be excessive investigations and that investigations will be pursued in a responsible manner which need arouse no fears in the breasts of those in charge of industry. I accept what the noble Earl said about the great importance of confidence in industry, and how confidence does indeed condition investment and employment.
The noble Earl asked—and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and others, perhaps, also made this point—about the level of profits. The noble Viscount said that the case for this Bill cannot rest on excessive profits, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was making a similar point. I agree, and the Government acknowledge that, in real terms, profitability is now at an all-time low. This reflects the effect of inflation and the low level of output resulting from the recession. But we hope and expect that, with a reasonable recovery in world trade and industrial output, profitability will increase over the next year or so. We have taken various steps to help, such as modifications in the price code, capital allowances, stock relief and so on, to give companies a more favourable situation with regard to profitability. But I stress that real improvement can come only with growth in the economy, and the proposed Price Commission to be set up under this Bill will not be the enemy of that growth; it will be one important help towards that growth.
The noble Earl, as did, certainly, two other speakers, raised the matter of the relationship between price control through the mechanism of the Price Commission on the one hand and wage restraint on the other. This relationship of course exists. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spelt this out admirably. I wish to disagree with not one word of her analysis. Of course, wage restraint can be acceptable to public opinion only if there is seen to be price restraint. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his speech said that this was suggesting that the British public was stupid. I would suggest that it clearly proves that they are

1273
hard-headed rather than stupid. Of course, it is in all reason that, when people are subjected to influences, requests and demands to keep their wages down, they will look to see what is happening to the prices in the shops and will ask that the Government which demand wage restraint of them should also do something to restrain prices.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised the question of permanence—and here, again, he was joined by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—because, as they quite rightly pointed out, the Bill proposes that the investigatory powers shall be permanent. What was remarkable about the noble Earl's speech was that I do not think he once mentioned the word "consumer". He does not seem to recognise that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, this is largely a consumer Bill and that the consumer interest, and the need to protect the consumer interest, is not the short-term emergency that he was prepared to accept but a long-term interest; and that, therefore, the machinery we have devised for protecting the consumer interest in this way must also be permanent.
My Lords, there has been talk of the relationship and the overlapping between the Price Commission and the Monopolies Commission. This is true; but I hope that no one will suggest that the Monopolies Commission should last for only a year. We see the Price Commission as doing a job comparable with that of the Monopolies Commission and we believe that it should have permanency just as the Monopolies Commission has permanency. There was one final point which the noble Earl made and which I warmly welcomed. He said that he and his colleagues certainly were not going to cause any unnecessary delay to this Bill. I very much appreciate that this should be the attitude with which we go into the remaining stages of the Bill. There will be need for a good deal of discussion and, in this connection, I would welcome also what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said in his opening remarks. It is not that I am a friend of all. He may find that I am sometimes a little unfriendly, but I welcomed his remark about my right honourable friend having shown a spirit of accommodation when faced with reasonable Amendments. I hope that we can do the same in this House. Indeed, a
1274
number of Amendments which were made in another place were made by common agreement between the two sides of the Committee, though there were plenty that divided them. I hope that we can make reasonable Amendments as we go along.
I have already commented not a little on the speech which we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and, particularly, on the relationship between pay policy and price policy that she so admirably spelled out. I found myself in agreement with her on practically all that she said, including the question of the approach to a possible merger between the Price Commission and the Monopolies Commission. She quoted from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I assure her what he said expresses his longer-term view; but there are real differences of policy related to the two bodies in the short term. It would not be possible to use this Bill to bring about that merger but it would be our hope that, in the future, the overlapping could be eliminated.
There was just one point upon which I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness. It was when she felt that there had been some doubt whether the Party for which I speak believes in a mixed economy. It does, I do and she does; and I am glad that that is so.
Perhaps I may now turn to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. She raised my hopes with her opening sentences when she referred to the fact that, as we all recall, she had been chairman of the first Consumer Council, and pointed out that consumers were most anxious about rising prices. But, immediately after having made that encouraging introduction, she went on to talk as a producer. She looked back with nostalgia at the times when it was possible to think of the free market economy as the cure for all economic ills. I am not sure that it ever was. Obviously, she at one time thought that it was; and I agree that very few people—although there are still some—really believe that the free market economy is the means of reconciling conflicting interests between consumers and producers. Some mechanism of regulation is needed in order to produce the right balance; sober consideration of all the facts in relation to particular situations is required. We

1275
believe that the Price Commission will be one of the important pieces of the mechanism to achieve that balance.
My Lords, I have referred already to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, at one or two points. I am sure that he will not expect me to follow him in his close analysis of the biscuit trade. Certainly, I am very fond of biscuits, but I have not all the analyses of the problems that he mentioned at my fingertips. However, I noted a number of his points with considerable interest. He made the point that prices in nationalised industries need to be watched as much as prices in the private sector. I agree.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, not "as much as" but "more than" and "instead of".
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly not "instead of". I would say "equally with". Our new price policy makes no difference between the treatment of nationalised industries and the private sector. The criteria in Clause 2 of the Bill will apply to the nationalised industries in the same way as they apply to all other enterprises. Nationalised industries can, therefore, be subject to investigation or examination on the same basis as industry generally. It may not entirely satisfy the noble Lord but its satisfies me that there should be equal treatment between the two sectors.
The noble Lord made the point, from his considerable experience in the food trade, that price controls had not been effective there. I recognise that, in the realm of food in recent years, the effective control has been competition. But this Price Commission will have a much wider scope than the particular area to which the noble Lord draws attention, and there are considerable areas where competition is not so full as it is in the area to which the noble Lord made special reference.
Though I have not replied specifically to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, I have taken up a number of his points during the course of my answers to other speeches. I reiterate my thanks to those who have indicated that, though we shall in the following stages of this Bill need to examine many problems again very carefully—less fully perhaps than in
1276
another place—nevertheless, we shall go into those debates in a constructive spirit to make the Bill what it should be.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SERVICE WIDOWS (EQUALITY OF PENSIONS) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
6.1 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. A Bill with all-Party support was introduced in another place earlier this year. Following that, two Members of the House, Mr. Peter Viggers and Mr. Philip Goodhart, wrote to the Prime Minister and received a reply in the following terms:
"My concern and sympathy for these widows comes directly, as you will recognise, from my personal experience I mentioned in the Censure debate".
He added:
"I am certainly not prepared to defend the distinction based on rank which existed before the 1952 scheme".
However, after that nice opening, he turned down a proposal stating:
"If pre-1950 Service widows were to be awarded pensions retrospectively, there would be equally valid claims from other groups".
He then mentioned some of them.
In a debate in the other House in 1972 on the Consolidated Fund, I quoted from a reply from Mr. A. V. Alexander, who had been a Minister in his day, who stated in May 1949 that a review was being made. While having made several attempts since then to get some change, I was rather affronted when I wrote again to the Ministry a little later. I received a reply from a civil servant which, I am afraid, was in these terms:
"I am afraid there is nothing I can usefully add to my letter of 19th June and, in these circumstances, I can see no value in any further correspondence".
I considered then, and I do so today, that it was an unfortunate attitude to have been taken, and this is really what has happened ever since 1948.
There have been exceptions; there have been payments in special circumstances.

1277
For example, following the sinking of HMS "Saumarez", and HMS "Volage" off Corfu, pensions were awarded to widows and orphans of the officers and men who lost their lives. I want to emphasise "officers and men". Pensions were paid in accordance with the rates laid down in an Order in Council of 4th June 1948. It was considered and then called "compensation", but actually they were pensions paid over a number of years.
The noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, stated at a Royal British Legion Conference, commemorating 50 years of work:
"It is painful to sit here and realise we are behind every Commonwealth country in the treatment of war widows. Why is it that year after year Governments are so hardhearted about it?"
There has just been another conference of Commonwealth Parliamentarians and I took the opportunity of checking with some of them regarding pensions in their countries, and they are considerably better than ours.
While I acknowledge that since 1972 some welcome changes have been made, it still remains the fact that widows of the men in the Armed Forces who fortunately have never heard a shot fired in anger, and who were often able to accompany their husbands, should —quite rightly—receive good pensions. But the others, especially the elderly who are in what are known as Service towns, who live in close proximity to younger Service widows, drawing, in comparison, large pensions with no strings attached, have to shop in the same area and have to pay the same rents. These widows are very proud individuals who rightly feel aggrieved.
Year after year Ministers of both Parties have wept crocodile tears. I have read most of the documents through again and they have said that nothing can be done. I regret to say that a Conservative Minister for the Royal Navy also turned this matter down. We had a final reply from the Minister in this Government on 3rd May 1976. He said:
"…to do nothing, taken only with the greatest regret and for the very strongest reasons".
1278
That is why I say that they have wept crocodile tears. Surely if they really wished to do something they could do so.
I was interested to read in today's paper—and I do not mean this in any rude manner—that Members of Parliament are to receive another £4 a week. I suppose that this is for very strong reasons. I think there are very strong reasons for these elderly widows to be considered. It is stated that between 3,000 and 6,000 war widows die each year, and so there must be a saving of at least between £7 million and £8 million a year. In both 1973 and 1974 3,000 widows died. In 1975 6,000 died, so the Government are saving between £7 million and £8 million a year.
I realise that the probable cost would be about £100 million to bring these war widows in line with those whose husbands have been killed in Northern Ireland. However, this sum does not take into account the tax position because it is the gross figure to be paid out. In my view, it is unfair to discriminate against those whose husbands retired before 1950 or were killed in one of the two World Wars, by giving them £22 a week less than those whose husbands were killed in Service since 1966.
In the other House I was pleased to receive the backing and support of the present Foreign Secretary, who stated fairly that he had been Navy Minister and it was a severe disappointment to him that he had been unable to make the change. Later we had another Minister, Mr. Frank Judd, who also supported me. But he could not make the change. It has been stated that it would be necessary to consider other categories in the other Services; but there are already many anomalies in the situation in that officers and warrant officer Class 1 widows are eligible for a pension and have been for nearly 100 years. It is wrong that there should be discrimination between officers and other ranks. The matter should be looked into regarding its merits. I should like to draw that to the attention of noble Lords.
In the Plymouth edition of the Evening Herald of 21st June 1972, there was the headline: "No mite for the widow". In the article it was stated that in the terms of the Government's yearly budget,

1279
£1½ million to £3 million was a paltry sum and should be awarded. In recent years successive Governments have insisted on making comparisons outside the Service rather than in the Service. This pension that we are asking for is essentially a non-contributory pension scheme; in other words, a reward for service for the individual concerned. Nobody can say in this House that we do not get well served by the men and women of our Services.
It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister receives a pension, even if he is a Prime Minister for only one day. Judges, top civil servants, senior Service officers get substantial increases. No one is against—certainly I am not—people getting increases if they are merited; but it is only fair to look into the case of these war widows again to see whether there is a way of dealing with this situation. Surely with all the brains in the Government and behind them, with their advisers, there should be some way of getting over this difficult situation which has been going on since 1948.
Regarding the Bill, the first subsection of Clause 1 is clear. In subsection (2), in regard to payment, it is stated:
"Such pension shall be paid from the National Insurance Fund".
That is so for two reasons. The noble Lord who is going to answer me will know that first, because an individual Member of Parliament today may not introduce a Bill the main purpose of which is a money Bill. Should the Government wish to provide pensions from the Consolidated Fund or any other fund, so long as the pensions are paid it is immaterial from my point of view from which source they come. Also, because the defence budget is always being cut it might be easier to take it from some other fund.
Clause 2(1) sets out the category of widows; Clause 3 gives the power to the Secretary of State. Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State power to act by Statutory Instrument on any date he may choose—and I say, the sooner the better. The reason for Clause 5 is that one realises that this may not be the moment when the Government feel they can undertake this extra expenditure; but surely when we have been told day by day that the Government are getting over difficulties and that we are
1280
in for a millennium in the future, these people might have their share. This is why the date is left open and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to give me not just a sympathetic answer but a positive answer "yes", not a positive answer "no", and that we will be able to help some of these people who are really in need. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Baroness Vickers.)
6.12 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this Bill. I have listened with interest and sympathy to all that she had to say. In the debate on the subject of war widows which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on the 14th April last year, I said that I supported the principle of parity for war widows' pensions and would continue to press for its establishment at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the present economic situation; so I welcome this Bill, which has precisely that aim in view.
Of course, I am aware that the Government have raised the war widows' pension paid by the Department of Health and Social Security in order that it may keep pace with inflation. They have maintained it at approximately 30 per cent. above the National Insurance social security level, and today for a private soldier's widow it stands at £19·80 per week, with additional allowances at age 65 and age 70. I am also equally aware of the anomalies in this field of war widows' pensions. We know that many thousands of the pre-1950 war widows, and of the 1950–73 war widows as well, need to have recourse to supplementary benefit. We know of the differences and anomalies as between the pre-1950 widows, the 1950/73 widows and the post-1973 widows.
I think there would be little opposition in this House to two propositions: first that the level—30 per cent. above the social security level—of the war widows' pension paid by the Department of Health and Social Security, and which is the only pension which many receive, is not enough. This is not a criticism particularly of this Government but of success

1281
ive Governments, of Parliament and of society generally. The second proposition is this: that it is not acceptable that war widows should receive in total Government funds pensions of widely differing amounts according to when they were widowed.
The forces family pension scheme introduced in 1972 and at that time made retrospective to 1950, and the revised and improved 1973 scheme, are paid and administered by the Ministry of Defence. It may not be reasonable to expect that those schemes should be made retrospective, but the Bill provides for the equivalent or supplementary pension required for pre-1950 and pre-1973 widows respectively to be paid from the National Insurance fund by the Department of Health and Social Security, presumably along with the basic war widows' pension available to all. Thus, a pre-1973 war widow would receive from the Department of Health and Social Security to add to the basic war widows' pension paid by that Department and to the pension under the family pension scheme, if she were entitled to a pension from that scheme, an amount to ensure that her total pension equalled that currently being received by the widow of a Serviceman of equal rank who retired on 1st April 1973. Such a person has her Ministry of Defence pension increased in line with the cost of living, so that it is more or less the same as the pension received by all those subsequently widowed whose husbands were of similar rank.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has already said, in the debate on 14th April last year it was stated that the cost of giving parity to war widows would amount to £100 million, although, as she also indicated, the cost must get less as each year passes. It was pointed out that it would be necessary to include war disablement pensioners as well. It would be difficult to have different rates of pension for them if you got rid of different rates of pension for war widows. It was stated that that would bring the cost to £250 million. The Bill does not include the war disablement pensioners, and perhaps if it were passed the Government would feel obliged to introduce further legislation to do the same for them. One hundred million pounds or £250 million are not enormous sums these days, but we all know that in present circumstances the Govern
1282
ment would understandably argue against any further expenditure; but the provisions in the Bill would not come into force until the Secretary of State so decided. If the Bill were passed into law, there would not necessarily be any immediate expense, but the principle of priority would have been established, and for that reason I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Vickers on introducing this evening this short but important Bill and to support it. I do so not only after listening to her speech but to the very constructive one from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I come relatively new to this subject, but of course I have read with great interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said in another place in 1972 and reread the debate which took place in another place in May of this year. Looking at the situation as a whole, it seems to be quite extraordinary that widows of Servicemen should fall into these three distinct categories, their pension depending entirely on the date on which their husband either retired or died. It must be something quite different from any other form of pension scheme anywhere, and I think it must be unintelligible and unkind to the widows involved.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments for supporting this short Bill which have been so well set out, except to endorse very warmly the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, which seems to me to commend this Bill to the House. It does not commit any immediate expenditure of money, but it establishes a principle of parity. On rereading all the debates, it seems to me that there is no difference between the political Parties on this matter, in the sense that everybody wishes to do something for the widow. Everybody seems to have been unable to do anything for her and of course, the real sufferers are the widows, particularly the most elderly, whose plight is referred to at regular intervals but for whom nothing is done. I should like to look at the arguments which have been adduced from time to time against doing anything, leaving aside the economic argument which I think is quite a different one.

1283
So far as I can ascertain on rereading the arguments put out by Government Ministers of both Parties, we are never sure of the total number of widows of those Servicemen who retired below the rank of warrant officer before 1950. So far as I can see the latest figures were given by the late Sir Peter Kirk on 2nd August 1972 when he estimated that there were 30,000 widows involved. This figure was again quoted on 3rd May 1976 by the Minister, the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Duffy, who said it was not a reliable figure.
I find it quite extraordinary that although we collect information on so many subjects—even collecting information from a census, apart from anything else—that we cannot get accurate figures for the numbers of widows who fall into this category. I find it a very depressing sidelight on the whole of our Welfare State that we should be unable to get accurate figures on the matter so that we are unable to have an accurate costing. I should think that this would be a matter which should be looked at urgently. I can quite understand that the total number of widows of Servicemen who retired before 1950 could well be rising, because that particular group would be getting older and therefore there would be more widows; but ultimately it must be a diminishing number and therefore it should be possible to calculate the final cost.
The second reason which is always put forward for not doing anything at all for war widows is that it would create a precedent and that if we looked at these groups of widows, particularly the pre-1950 group, we should have to look immediately at the widows of teachers and local government officers and of many other groups. I think we can make out a very good case for looking at the widows of all those groups, but we are not concerned with them at the moment. The inequity arises also because widows above a certain rank get something and widows below it do not. Whether or not that is right for widows of teachers or local government officers, by no stretch of imagination can it be right for widows of Service people; and I find it quite wrong to go on quoting other examples to show why this cannot be done. We were always told that nothing could be done for the
1284
over-80s, but eventually it was possible to bring in a special pension for them. I believe that if there was a will to do so, it would be possible to find a solution in this case. That is why I hope this Bill will get a Second Reading, because its principle will then have been established.
The last reason which is always given, so far as I can see, as a sop to everybody's conscience is that widows of Servicemen, post-1973, are vastly better off. Of course, we are delighted that they are better off; so they should be. Nobody is going to detract in any way from anything that has been done for widows of recently serving men but, if I may say so, that is, in a sense, irrelevant to the argument. We are not trying to establish that they should be better off still; we are simply trying to establish that other widows who are not well off should be as well off as those widows are today. That is the argument, so I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replies he will not tell us that we should all be very pleased with ourselves and give ourselves a pat on the back because post-1973 widows are all right. We know that and we are pleased about it, but we are not concerned about them for the moment: we are concerned about the others. I sensed, in a way, when my noble friend Lady Vickers read out the correspondence between my honourable friend Mr. Goodhart and the Prime Minister, if I understood her correctly, that he, too, was using the argument, not that we need not concern ourselves with the others, but that we should be pleased that things are better for present-day widows.
I believe that argument to be quite irrelevant to the case and one which simply confuses the issue, because if it is going to be used as an argument we might just as well say to those elderly widows —many of them now living in very uncomfortable and unhappy circumstances "We are not going to do anything for you at all; you might as well make up your minds to the fact that until the day you die nothing is going to happen, because the three arguments that are constantly used can be argued about into the indefinite future. There is not a definite date on it. The only argument by which there could be a change is the economic one, if things get better".
I believe this to be a very serious matter, and I am delighted that my noble friend

1285
Lady Vickers raised it today. It has my warmest support, and I hope we can establish the principle that elderly people who have been, I believe, unjustly treated in the past should know that Parliament has determined that at a given date in the future they will get a better deal.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—she is in such an important position in our Party—may I ask whether she will then argue for this to be put into the Conservative Manifesto for the next General Election? I am sure she will agree with me—and I have myself done quite a lot over the years in matters of this kind—that it takes very many years, as we know from the problem with the over-80s, before the battle is won. Therefore, can we have an assurance that she will ensure that the matters that require attention are embodied in the Conservative Manifesto for the next General Election?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am always enormously flattered that my noble friend should think that I have only to say the word and anything would get into the Conservative Party's Manifesto. Alas! that is not the case, my Lords, much as I should like it to be. What I can say is that, as a matter of principle from all that I have said, we should establish that there ought to be equality of treatment. Having established that, when the economic circumstances are right, we could fulfil our pledge. I think that would be an important step forward.
6.27 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Vickers for the opportunity given to us in this Bill to debate Service widow's pensions today. Service pensions of all sorts have grown up piecemeal over the years and there are now very many different groups and varying schemes. These schemes need our constant attention in order to try to reduce the many anomalies and inequalities caused by this situation. That is exactly what this Bill sets out do do. The time has come to tidy up Service widows' pension schemes by levelling the whole scheme step by step until eventually parity or equality is reached.
1286
For the most part, Service pensions arc governed by two principles: the first is based on service and not on contributions—that is to say, seniority, age and length of service of the individual when he retires. That principle is well understood and conforms with normal pension practice, whereby an individual's pension corresponds in proportion to his final rates of pay before he retires. The second principle of Service pensions consists of a series of artificial date barriers or cut-off dates, when the improved conditions and pay and pensions are announced—but only those serving on or after the selected date are eligible. That, of course, also applies to the widows' pensions. That not only causes misunderstanding and anxiety, but the older and earlier pensioners tend to fall behind, although in their day they and their husbands have given identical service.
As I have said, Service pensions are given for service and as increases are made to other pensions to cope with the rising cost of living, these pensioners fall behind. I think these cut-off dates are totally wrong, because prices in the supermarkets are high, and whether or not your husband retires after a certain date is immaterial. For those reasons I strongly support the principle of parity, as indeed do other speakers in this debate. I realise this has been debated many times and that many problems are involved. My noble friend Lady Young has outlined some of them. Nevertheless, these problems and difficulties must be overcome and we can no longer go on accepting excuses for doing nothing.
For these reasons, I prefer to see parity achieved not in one step, as this Bill proposes, but by a levelling forward process, step by step, until full pension parity is achieved. Also for this reason, I should prefer to see the Bill gain the Statute Book and then see results step by step, as we can afford to level forward. If parity was achieved and the jungle of varying scales, regulations and cut-off dates, which affect Service pensions, was finally ironed out of the system altogether, I cannot help wondering what would be the saving in civilian staff who deal with pensions. I believe that it would be enormous.
In my opinion, the most important proposal in this Bill is that pre-1950 service should count towards widows'

1287
pension, regardless of rank. At this point, I must say that I am probably the only person taking part in this debate who has a Service pension. But I am lucky, because I retired after 1st September 1973, and therefore am not personally affected by any arguments that I am putting forward—and I should like to discuss the husband's pension as well as the widow's pension—so that my motives, as your Lordships will appreciate, are not affected by that.
I did not think that I should find it necessary to remind noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite of the importance of social justice, but that is exactly what I intend to try to do now. How can you justify a pension scheme which allows pre-1950 service to count towards the pension of a widow whose husband was an officer or warrant officer class I, when the same service is not allowed to count at all if that husband was a warrant officer class II or below? The niceties of these regulations, and perhaps even the principles of these regulations, may be understood in the dusty corridors of the Treasury. But how can any responsible person or official explain such a crazy regulation to the unlucky widow, in any satisfactory manner or with any conviction?
To take the very worst case—and it is a hypothetical one—what can be the thoughts of two widows, one the widow of a warrant officer class I, the other the widow of a warrant officer class II, whose husbands both served in the same regiment and retired before 1st September 1950? What are their thoughts when they go shopping together in the supermarket, or buy clothes, because the disparity between their pensions is quite enormous and yet the disparity in their ranks is marginal.
This has often been debated over the years in another place; in particular, in the House of Commons on 2nd August 1972, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, initiated an interesting debate on this very point. It is, in my view, a matter of urgency to put right this stupid and unkind anomaly, and if this Bill achieves nothing else I hope it will achieve that. But I think that it is illogical to allow pre-1950 service to count towards a widow's pension, and not allow the same thing to happen to the husband who is living and has, after all, earned it. I realise that if that principle is accepted, the process of levelling forward
1288
may become more expensive and slower. But, nevertheless, I think that it is logical and we have to accept that fact. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will be given a Second Reading, and that the Minister who is to reply to this debate will assure us that the Government's aim and policy are to achieve equality of pensions, and that this will be done by levelling pension forward step by step, until parity is reached. I further hope that, as a first step in this levelling process, pre-1950 service will count towards the pensions of all ranks and not only those of the more senior ranks in the Services.
6.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I say at once to the noble Baroness. Lady Vickers, and to those Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in support of this Bill. that the Government fully recognise the strength of feeling in this House, and indeed in another place, about the pre-1950 widows who are clearly at the heart of what is proposed to be done. The noble Baroness, however, spoke about crocodile tears from Ministers. She will get no crocodile tears from me, but I hope that she will get a reasoned argument which will help her to understand the problems that face any Government of whatever political complexion.
This Government—and, indeed, the previous Government —share the very widespread sympathy which has been expressed over many years for these ladies. We accept that an inequity of treatment resulted from the rules which existed up to a quarter of a century ago. If, today, we were constructing an occupational pension scheme for any group of employees, it would be quite unthinkable to include a rule that no one below a certain rank or grade could possess a contingent entitlement to a pension for his widow.
At this point, I should like to clarify a small semantic point in our discussion. This Bill relates to Service widows. and the definition of a Service widow is a widow of a Regular officer or Serviceman who is eligible for pension from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. which is, in fact, an occupational pension scheme. The war widows, about whom the noble Lord, Lord Banks, talked, are those ladies whose husbands, whether Regular

1289
Servicemen or not, have been killed in the course of duty. They receive pensions from the Department of Health and Social Security, regardless of the length of their husbands' service. I hope that noble Lords will keep in mind this distinction between the occupational scheme and the scheme which covers the needs of war widows.
In the case of the Services, this disparity in provision was amended when, with effect from 1st September 1950, the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme prescribed—among several other improvements—that all ranks could earn a widow's pension if they gave long enough service. That is clearly an occupational pension scheme. Even then, there was something of rank distinction among non-commissioned officers and men: for corporals and below, the minimum period for qualification was 32 years; for sergeants it was 27 years. That was put right a few years later, when all non-commissioned ranks became pensionable at 22 years.
To put this development in perspective, it might be worth remembering that the widows of officers first received pensions in 1707, and the widows of warrant officers Class I received pension in 1881. That explains the situation described by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, of the WO1's widow and the WO2's widow shopping side by side. We are talking about the historical development of pensions for the Armed Forces. It may not be just, but it is fact.
So the year 1950 marked, in this respect, a significant improvement, but—as this Bill reminds us yet again—there are many Servicemen's widows still alive, whose husbands died or were discharged before the new pension scheme came into operation. We do not know how many there are now, or how many more there will be. Our records do not show how many men in 1950 had died or had been discharged without this contingent entitlement. Nor do we know how many of them have since passed away and how many remain, and whether they had been married while still serving.
Some years ago, an assumption was made—and it was no more than that—on the best information available, that there were about 30,000 such widows. In subsequently looking at the problem,
1290
we have assumed, in the absence of any more realistic figure, that there are still about 30,000; not that this takes us a great deal further, because the basic Armed Forces Pension Scheme, like most occupational pension schemes, relates to the husband's rank and length of service.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but before lie leaves the point about figures can he tell the House whether or not his Department is taking any steps to get a more realistic figure, so that we may all know precisely the number of widows that we are talking about? Perhaps the noble Lord could write to me.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was coming on to that point. This figure does not take us a great deal further, because the basic Armed Forces pension scheme, like most occupational pension schemes, relates to the husband's rank and length of service, but the numbers clearly are likely to prove considerable and the cost of now paying pensions on the basis proposed would therefore be significant.
May I now try to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness. If something were to be done for these widows, it would be a matter of advertising and inviting them to make themselves known. So the answer is that the number could be found out, if such a decision were made. It is not a mystery. The number could be found out by advertising, although that would in no way ensure that all widows had been reached. Some, no doubt, are now resident abroad. Nevertheless, despite the administrative difficulties which could be foreseen, various possibilities have been examined from time to time, and in great depth, to see whether anything at all could be done towards amending the inequity which so obviously exists without creating further anomalies —this is an important point—and without creating a sense of unfairness among other groups of former public servants and their widows. Reluctantly but inevitably, the conclusion has been reached with every investigation that the obstacles have been insuperable.
It must be recognised that in the pre-1950 years the concept of pensions for the widows of officers and certain warrant officers was in advance of its time. There

1291
were no such arrangements for the widows of civil servants, local government officials, teachers and other public servants. Junior ranks of the Armed Forces were on a par with all these in this respect and all, at about the same time, began to qualify under the new provision being made for widows' pensions. Thus, the previously existing inequity was not solely between Service officers and Servicemen; it was also between Service officers on the one hand and, on the other hand, Servicemen and all grades from the top to the bottom of the civilian public services. Therefore, any move now to give pre-1950 Servicemen's widows some form of pension would logically—and I am certain that both noble Baronesses are logical people—have to be accompanied by similar concessions to all public service widows. This in turn would make the whole proposition very much more expensive.
But I have yet to refer to the fact that the terms of the Bill we are speaking about go a long way beyond giving to these pre-1950 non-commissioned ranks' widows pensions on the same basis as those received by pre-1950 officers' widows. It seeks to give parity for these widows with the widows of a much more recent period and linked to the very significant effective date of 1st April 1973. This is a very different thing from remedying an inequity; it proposes to give these widows an advantage which it makes no attempt to extend to pre-1950 officers' widows. We are now speaking in this Bill purely of NCOs and other ranks, not of officers.
In its second clause, the Bill goes still further and offers to non-commissioned ranks' widows of the period between 1950 and 1973 the same degree of parity. This is a group on whose behalf there can be no justifiable complaint about their having been treated in principle less favourably than officers' widows of the same period. It is true, as I have already said, that there were certain improvements after 1950 which brought periods of qualifying service more closely into line, but one is forced to the conclusion that this second clause is a consequential of the overgenerous provision proposed to be made in the previous clause and could not in any way stand on its own merits. Again it propounds a degree of additional benefit for non-commissioned ranks' widows without indicating a correspond
1292
ing supplement for the widows of officers.
I referred to the date for which parity is sought—1st April 1973—as being very significant. On that date was introduced a package of improvements to the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme. Among the improvements was something quite new: the provision of greatly enhanced benefits when the disablement or death of a member of the Armed Forces is attributable to service. It is therefore the intention of the noble Baroness's Bill to extend these more generous arrangements to all non-commissioned ranks' widows, but not to those of officers, if their husbands were killed while on duty at any time in the past.
This brings me to yet another consequential of any change in the long-established principle, of which your Lordships are well aware, that improvements in occupational pension schemes are not applied to those, or to the widows of those, whose service has already terminated. It would be manifestly impossible to accord the kind of parity which the Bill proposes to Servicemen's widows without giving similar parity in disablement pensions. It would no doubt be argued that this would be a good thing, save for the prohibitive cost, and I think it has been argued today. I am bound to add that once the principle of non-retrospection has been breached in any respect—and the intention of the Bill is to breach it subsubstantially—there is virtually no defence against further inroads by other groups from the public sector. An obvious target would be to extend the parity of the arrangements now proposed to a current date; this is, in fact, what most of the many suggestions which are made aim at from the start, for there is little logic in settling upon 1st April 1973 other than to embrace the pensions improvements which then came in. If I correctly understood the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, he was trying to avoid this problem. He was trying to avoid the principle of non-retrospection by jogging forward rather than by jogging backward. May I ask the noble Earl whether I am right about that?
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is an important point which I think

1293
could well be considered. Now I turn to the suggestion that the proposed benefits should be paid out of the National Insurance Fund. I should like first to remind noble Lords of the origin and purpose of that Fund. It was set up under the National Insurance Act 1946 to receive the contributions payable by employers and insured persons, and to meet the costs of paying National Insurance benefits. There have been many changes since then and the Fund now operates under the Social Security Act 1975; but the purpose is still essentially the same. It really would be altogether inappropriate to finance Servicemen's occupational pensions out of it.
All benefits under the 1946 Act were payable out of the Fund, but some benefits under the 1975 Act are not. Those which are not payable from the Fund are the non-contributory benefits, such as attendance allowance and mobility allowance. Parliament generally, as well as noble Lords, I believe, on both sides of the House, have long recognised that the National Insurance Fund exists to provide insurance benefit to the whole working population.
This Bill is designed to benefit certain widows of Servicemen. All benefits presently payable out of the National Insurance Fund are available to contributors, or their dependants, when the appropriate contingency occurs, if they are part of the insured population, and distinctions are not drawn between differing occupations. It would be unfair to contributors as a whole to use the National Insurance Fund for the benefit of one particular occupational group. National insurance widows' benefits are already available to the widows of retired Servicemen on the same terms as to widows of other contributors.
The widows of men who died during or as a result of service in the 1914–18 war and during or as a result of service since 1939 may receive war pensions. These recognise the unusual risks of active service, and also the fact that the industrial injuries benefits are not available to Servicemen and their dependants. In keeping with the principles I have outlined, these war pensions are not paid from the National Insurance Fund but from funds voted by Parliament. So I have explained why, on grounds both of principle and of
1294
cost, we are regrettably unable to put right what has been recognised as an anomaly, affecting not only the widows of certain Servicemen but also the widows of former public servants.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, will feel that her purpose will have been served by drawing the Government's attention to these widows and that no further purpose would be served by proceeding with her Bill. However, I can assure her that we shall not vote against her Bill on Second Reading.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply. So far as I can make out, it is a rather Alice in Wonderland situation. Obviously I cannot be very satisfied with the noble Lord's reply, but I am grateful to him for saying that the Government do not intend to vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.50 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Stop notices]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 8 and insert ("in respect of any land the local planning authority—

(a) have served an enforcement notice requiring a breach of planning control to be remedied; but

(b) consider it expedient to prevent, before the expiry of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, the carrying out of any activity which is, or is included in, a matter alleged by the notice to constitute the breach,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 on the Marshalled List. It will be recognised that this series of Amendments is the result of discussion at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House on an Amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Amendment No. 1 raised the question of whether the Bill itself should do any more than spell

1295
out matters to which the local planning authority should have regard when it considered whether or not to take stop action supplementary to enforcement action.
Before taking any enforcement action the local planning authority is required to consider whether it is expedient to take the action, having regard to the provisions of the development plan for the particular area and also any other material considerations. When the local planning authority has taken that action there is no obligation on the persons upon whom the notice has been served to cease their activities until the notice has come into effect and the period for compliance has expired. It is only then that it becomes an offence to continue the particular activity specified in the stop notice. I understand it is still considered that both under the existing Section 90 of the 1971 Act and under the new Section 90 that we substitute in the Act under this Bill, the local planning authority has to exercise a further discretion before serving a stop notice. I think everyone accepts that this calls for criteria of expediency which are different from those which apply when taking enforcement action.
Therefore, Amendment No. 1 draws attention to the need for the local planning authority to make the additional and separate decision as to whether it is—in House of Lords terms or even in Biblical terms—expedient to secure by the stop notice procedure the cessation of activities as a whole or just one or more particular activities, and by obtaining a stop notice to terminate this particular activity more speedily than could have been done under the associated enforcement notice. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 1 and Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential upon that. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Foot, who moved Amendments at the Committee stage, to express to your Lordships his apologies for being unable to be present this evening. He asked me to thank both the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and the Government for the fact that we have before us this evening Amendments which, in the words of a note which I have from my noble friend,
1296
"… go some considerable way towards achieving what my original Amendments were intended to do".
Lord HALE: My Lords, as I spoke on the first Amendment at the Committee stage, I should like to echo those words. I have nothing to add, except to felicitate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on the clarity with which he has dealt with this matter and on the steps he has taken to meet very fairly the points that were raised.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I should like to support these Amendments. I am grateful for the amount of work that has been put in by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to try to reconcile the different views that were expressed, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who has worked very hard and made it possible for us to find the accommodation which at Committee stage I hoped it would be possible to find.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("out") insert ("of that activity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the two earlier Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert (" or
(d) the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman who is a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under paragraph 10 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and who has taken up winter quarters on the land with his equipment for some period falling between the beginning of October in any year and the end of March in the following year;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I have to point out that there is an error on the Marshalled List. It should read, "Page 2, line 10" and not "line 7". Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not able to be here today. Your Lordships may remember that he moved an Amendment on these lines at the Committee stage, but that Amendment was not accepted. We have changed the wording of the Amendment in the hope of perhaps making it a little clearer. If these words are accepted, the showman would then be identified in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 as:
"… a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under paragraph 10 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960",
and the showmen's guild would of course hold the certificate. The show men would have taken up winter quarters on the land for some period falling between the beginning of October and the end of March of the following year. When looking through Hansard, one of the points that struck me was that both the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made the point that to exempt showmen would be to discriminate in their favour because other persons carrying on business in conjunction with their caravans would not be covered. In my view that point is mistaken because the showmen do not carry on any business in their winter quarters as opposed to scrap dealers and others. The showmen merely park their equipment with their caravans, and they have to do that for security reasons alone. If they are not able to look after their equipment in this way, they suffer considerably from vandalism.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were therefore wrong, I believe, in suggesting that the showmen would be using their equipment during the winter months, although I am glad to say they stated that showmen did not usually cause severe damage or nuisance or offence to other amenities. If the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, cannot accept this Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, could say whether instructions could be sent to local authorities, telling them about the
1298
importance of these showmen having some form of site, because one knows that some local authorities—perhaps quite rightly—are over-zealous in their attitude towards these travelling showmen. I hope this Amendment can be accepted. But, if it cannot, I wonder whether the Department would be prepared to include in their regular circulars to local authorities advice to the effect that travelling showmen face special difficulties with their vehicles in winter quarters and, as the debate on 21st June made clear, travelling showmen would not normally be included in the category of persons who caused severe damage or nuisance which would justify a stop notice against a vehicle. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lady Vickers. She has moved an Amendment which is slightly different from the Amendment moved at the previous stage of the Bill. I must say I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lord Brooke's Amendment, and indeed the advice he gave to the Committee that what this Bill was doing was taking out the special provision of the 1960 Act specifically giving support to the travelling showman. I have not yet heard any reason why it should be withdrawn. I do not know whether my noble friend is able to accept this Amendment at this stage. If my noble friend Lord Lyell cannot accept this Amendment, I would support Lady Vickers' plea to the Government that they should give some undertaking at this stage to try to allay the undoubted anxiety of those outside the House.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I rise only to associate myself with the admirable speech made by the noble Baroness and with the support given by the noble Earl. This class of people of course has a special affection in the hearts of some of us, if not in the hearts of all local councils. The modification the noble Baroness has made, the redrafting and narrowing of the clause moved on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has gone quite a long way to removing any theoretical objections which were made in the course of the debate. I am not sure whether it is in order to remind your Lordships that on the last Division the Amendment of Lord Brooke was defeated

1299
by a single vote, and I think rather surprisingly. It would be an action much in the spirit in which this Bill has been moved if this Amendment, relatively small, applying to a special class under special circumstances, were conceded without argument.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Vickers, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for their contributions, and particularly for the clarity with which my noble friend spelled out her Amendment. This particular Amendment is similar—although it is redrafted, and for the purposes of the Bill it is milder—to the Amendment moved at art earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. This was aimed at trying to secure that travelling showmen should have special exemption from this stop notice action I am proposing in the Bill in respect of the storage and the parking, to use that term, of their equipment on any land which is being used as winter quarters, but as well as that protection which is afforded them by Clause 1 in respect of land used as a caravan site.
There is one awkward aspect to the Amendment. It is extremely doubtful whether the Amendment achieves the particular object which I think the whole House, and in particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, wish to achieve, since the Amendment expresses the exemption as applying to,
"the use of land as a caravan site".
When we look at the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, we find the meaning of the term, "caravan site"; it means,
"… land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed".
As we understand it, this Amendment does not cover the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. There are two points which I should like to make. By the Amendment which we have just made to Clause 1 and the Amendments which are to follow, we hope to clarify the Bill's provisions with regard to the service of any stop notice, and indeed the effect of the 12-month limitation which is set out in subsection (2)
1300
of the new Section 90 in Clause 1.
Where the authority consider that there has been a breach of planning control, they may in the normal run of events serve an enforcement notice, and when they do this they have to take account of the criteria set out in Section 87 of the Act. If, having done this, they consider it expedient in the public interest to go further—and that would probably be in reply to pleas from individuals or groups in particular areas of the countryside—and to stop the use of one or more particular activity more quickly than would be possible under the enforcement procedure, then they are entitled to serve a stop notice.
Secondly, if the later Amendments are accepted, we shall find that the travelling showman would be covered, in that if he has used any land as winter quarters on any one occasion more than 12 months previously, then, like anyone else, he will be protected from the stop notice action in respect of using that land as winter quarters. He will be outside the scope of the Bill. Cases have been cited eloquently, both at this stage and at the earlier stage, by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers; the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, also expressed strong support for the showmen, saying how responsible they were. We believe that the showman would not be subject to the stop notice action if he had used land as winter quarters for at least the previous winter season.
Special provision has also been made in other enactments for travelling showmen to be able to use land for the stationing of their caravans for the purpose of human habitation; that is, for parking their own residential caravans. We hope that this Bill carries forward this principle by ensuring that they certainly cannot be made homeless at short notice. All of us know, responsible organisations such as the Showmen's Guild know, that under the system of planning control we have at the moment neither ownership nor the owner's permission to occupy land for any purpose—even leaving their equipment dormant and inactive over the winter season—frees the owner of the equipment from the requirement of obtaining planning permission if permission for such use is required.
All of us in your Lordships' House are aware that members of the Showmen's

1301
Guild aim to comply with all the laws relating to the use of land for any purpose, whether for setting up a funfair or for using the land as quarters. I appreciate, and I believe the Government appreciate, that they will face a particular problem if traditional winter quarter sites are lost, through redevelopment or rezoning, or possibly through objections that the site has become too crowded and there are too many caravans on the one site. Therefore, it might become unsuitable, too crowded and cause a particular problem to neighbours.
I believe that when such a thing happens it is incumbent on showmen—and particularly the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain—to do their best to ensure that even if all the normal planning procedures cannot be completed in the time available—and I believe that with such a responsible organisation there will not be much difficulty between the Showmen's Guild and the planning authorities—they will be able to make their peace with the particular planning authority over any emergency use of a new site if they have lost the original site.
I want particularly to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that there are already safeguards in the Bill against showmen being separated from their equipment at short notice. First, where a traditional site for showmen is lost, the local planning authority should be consulted quickly. I believe that that local planning authority will give urgent consideration to any difficulties that might arise through the traditional winter quarters being lost for any reason.
Secondly, Amendment No. 1, which is in my name and which the House has accepted, deals with the local authority and, above all, with the expediency of issuing a stop notice in relation to any activity. The consideration as to the issue of such a notice is entirely separate, and I believe that in practice it is more exacting than the consideration of an enforcement notice, which has much broader application.
Finally, where showmen, and especially the Showmen's Guild, adopt the attitude which was envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Bacon, at an earlier stage, I can see no
1302
difficulties for showmen as a result of my Bill. I do not think that this is likely to be the only type of case in which there may be such a close link between activities which are immune from stop action and others which are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, promised in previous stages of our debate that guidance would be given to local planning authorities on the exercise of these powers. I think it is likely that the Department of the noble Baroness would be ready and able to cover the point in a general way without making a special case for any class of person. As the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, pointed out, it is not the carrying on of a business which is specially at issue in the Bill, although I know that it is mentioned; it is the parking and the obstruction which could be caused by a great number of caravans in a place which had started as a fairly small winter quarters site for perhaps a family. A different chain of circumstances could arise where a large number of caravans and other families of showmen might wish to use a particular site. In that case I believe that further consultations would be required between all the showmen on the site and the local planning authority.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, will be able to consider the points and the safeguards that I have mentioned. I do not believe that there is any great ground between us on the question of showmen and how they will be treated as a result of the enactment of the Bill. I hope that I have stilled her worst fears and even her minor fears. As it is at present drafted, Amendment No. 4 will not achieve what the noble Baroness has in mind. Therefore, I cannot say that I can accept it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, put her Amendment extremely fairly. She acknowledges that there are problems about it. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has also clearly explained at some length—and I shall not go over it again—why the Amendment does not do what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, wishes. A great many of her fears should have been assuaged because other Amendments have been moved and carried, and the point about the 12 months has been dealt with.

1303
The noble Baroness made a specific point to me about the circular. I can certainly assure her that the circular will give advice along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has suggested. Perhaps I can give the gist of it, although these will probably not be the words used:
"In some cases in which a stop notice could be served in respect of an activity which is so closely connected with another which is immune from stop notice action, there would need to be special justification for a service of a stop notice".
I should have thought that that, together with all the points and safeguards that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, covers the point. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it does. I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this. Beyond this we cannot go because we should then find ourselves in the area which both the noble Lord and I vigorously opposed in Committee. I hope that that covers the points made by the noble Baroness so that she will accept my remarks and withdraw her Amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for their explanations. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied, but when the showmen read it perhaps it will ease their minds a little. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.17 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("an activity being carried out on land") and insert ("the period during which an activity has been carried out on land (whether continuously or otherwise)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, perhaps I could discuss Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These two Amendments are the result of doubts which were expressed at an earlier stage in Committee as to whether the wording the clause precluded a stop notice being served in respect of occasional or seasonal activities on any land which first took place more than 12 months earlier. The Amendments do no more than explain the original intention, but the insertion into the clause of an explicit reference to the continuity or otherwise of an activity removes any room for doubt, and that is what we seek.
The first Amendment makes it quite clear that the stop notice may not be served in relation to occasional, intermittent or seasonal activity which is being carried out on the land if that activity first began more than 12 months earlier. The second Amendment is a purely consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.19 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("continuing") and insert ("carrying out").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("(10) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice shall be construed in accordance with section 89(6) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These, again, are purely drafting Amendments which we have made in order to meet some arguments which were made at an earlier stage. Subsection 4(b) of Section 90 of the 1971 Act, which is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, provides for a stop notice to cease to have effect at the end of the period allowed for compliance with the enforcement notice and not, as hitherto, when the enforcement notice takes effect.
It is necessary to have a provision explaining what this phrase means because the local planning authorities have the power under Section 89(6) of the Act to extend the period for compliance. At present Clause 1(2) achieves this simply by adding a reference to Section 90 in Section 89(6) of the Act, where the phrase is defined for the purposes of Section 89.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed this out in Committee, and he stressed particularly that this was less convenient to people who might be using the Bill than would be a provision which defined the phrase separately for the purposes of Section 90. These two Amendments meet that point. The present Clause 1(2) is replaced by a provision inserting a new subsection to Section 90 of the Act, which is set out in Clause 1, providing that any reference in Section 90 to the

1305
period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice shall be construed in accordance with Section 89(6) of the Act. That is complicated. I apologise to the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
7.21 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 18 [General exceptions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47A:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("the deer was causing, or had caused, serious") and insert ("deer of the same species were causing, or had caused").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we considered this matter some days ago my noble friend Lord Northfield and the Government have been able to discuss a number of outstanding matters. It might be helpful if I were to say at this stage that there is almost complete agreement between my noble friend Lord Northfield and the Government on the majority of the Amendments put down. As all of your Lordships who are present know this Bill from front to back and, if I may say so, from back to front, I would think it is unnecessary for me to move certain Amendments at any great length.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47A and 49A. These Amendments make some changes in the conditions which must exist before farmers and other occupiers may be permitted to shoot deer in the closed season or at night in defence
1306
of their crops or other properties. The changes being made by these Government Amendments to Clause 18(6) correspond precisely to the modifications which my noble friend Lord Northfield has introduced in his revised version of subsection (7) in respect of the similar situation to which these subsections apply. I do not think I need to say any more. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, in supporting these Amendments may I briefly say two things: first, I should like again to thank the Home Office for their great attention to this Bill and for helping me redraft highly difficult sections of it. This has caused staff of the Home Office to be working late at night on more than one occasion. I am fully conscious of that and grateful for it. We have had our conflicts and our arguments, and almost our recriminations, but I am glad to say that, as my noble friend so kindly said, we have reached wide measures of agreement which are reflected in the Amendments on the Marshalled List. Nevertheless, may I say to my noble friend, secondly, that he knows and I know that at Third Reading there will be some small Amendments which are still under discussion, but I hope they will fall fully within the traditions of the House in that they will be in the nature of final tidying up of the Bill. I fully support what my noble friend has moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 8, line 44, leave out from ("and") to end of line 45 and insert—

("(c) that there was a likelihood of further damage and that such damage was likely to be serious, and

(d) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any further damage").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.25 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

1307
("(7) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason only of the taking or killing, or attempted taking or killing, of any deer by using—

(a) any smooth bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore loaded with a cartridge containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 grains (22·68 grammes), or

(b) any smooth bore gun of 12 bore gauge loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is 203 inches (5·2 millimetres) in diameter,

on any land if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged—

(i) that he was an authorised person, and

(ii) that deer of the same species were causing, or had caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, and

(iii) that there was a likelihood of further damage and that such damage was likely to be serious, and

(iv) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any further damage.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall have to speak slightly longer on this issue. I should be grateful for the indulgence of the House if I may speak to Amendment No. 53 at the same time, and if I may mention Amendment No. 61A, which is the proposed new clause on the Advisory Committee. It cannot be excluded at this point although I shall want to say a further word when we reach it.
Here, we are reaching an issue which was hotly debated at Committee stage. It is the question of the weapons permitted for use by an owner-occupier largely against marauding deer. The original intention of the Bill was that the shotgun should be phased out in favour of the rifle. Some noble Lords at any rate indicated that it would not be acceptable to the farming community to make this transition so quickly. In the end, we reached a compromise which involves continued permission to use a shotgun in the circumstances set out in the proposed Amendment, provided the damage is shown as set out in the latter part of the Amendment. Later, the Secretary of State will, by means of Amendment No. 53, have power, either nationally or area by area, to proscribe and prescribe the appropriate weapons to be used against deer. The present Amendment then will make a full compromise with the farming community, provided that the third element—the existence of the
1308
Advisory Committee which in the course of its work will advise the Minister on this issue, among others—is included.
I want to say two or three things about it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was most insistent on this issue at Committee stage and will accept from me that this involves leaving the status quo at the moment, with the inevitability, let us face it, of some considerable possibility of continued cruelty to deer by use of the shotgun. I accept this for a transitional period, but I hope that the noble Lord, in turn, will agree with me that the purpose of the years to come must be gradually to get the farming community to accept the phasing-out. They must be persuaded to accept the use of more appropriate weapons through a period of education, discussion, contact with their chief constable, and so on.
Having said that, let me say that this agreement is fully made with the National Farmers' Union. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who arranged for me, with him, to meet Sir Henry Plumb, the president of the NFU, with his vice-presidents. This became a package of compromise which the NFU confirmed in writing that they would be happy to accept, and, indeed, to support, provided that the whole thing is there. The package must include the powers of the Minister to act by order but with the possibility—indeed, the certainty—that the Minister will be advised by an advisory committee on which the NFU will be represented, with the possibility of course that if the Minister were to act too precipitately the farming community could make representations to the advisory committee and could finally oppose the Order in Council in Parliament if they were dissatisfied with the speed with which the matter was being dealt. I hope therefore that the whole procedure that is here suggested will commend itself to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has put some questions to me in writing and I would say three things to him. First, we fully accept that the protection of farmers' crops is a very ligitimate activity and nobody wants to deny the farmer the possibility of that protection. Secondly, I hope that in this transitional period we will move without undue fear that chief constables will be

1309
too restrictive or unduly unwilling to give any firearms certificates that the Minister's final orders in years to come—when all this has been through a period of education to final action—may necessitate.
Thirdly, I have with me letters from chief constables from which I will read a couple of sentences. One of them is a very important chief constable, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, where I know there is great sensitivity on this issue, and he writes:
"I appreciate that while the effect of the Bill, if implemented in its present form, would increase the amount of applications by farmers for high-powered rifles, the problem is not a national one and no real difficulties are envisaged in dealing with future applications in this Force".
That must be reassuring for the farming community and I want it to be on record. The chief constable of the West Mersea Constabulary writes:
"In any event, provided the nature of the applications"—
that is, for a firearms certificate—
"were satisfactory, refusals would not arise. I know the concern expressed by the National Farmers' Union, but I think they have exaggerated the situation".
I do not want to level any charges whatever; I simply want to allay fears. I hope that after a period of transition, for which this and the associated Amendments provide, we shall in years to come reach a happy outcome, and I hope that that preliminary or advance assurance from two chief constables who have a considerable responsibility in this matter will reassure the farming community that this process of transition should begin and should not in the end lead to undue difficulties when it is completed. I beg to move.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in what he said about hopes for the future and that chief constables will review their objections to issuing firearms certificates. If we continue to allow the use of shotguns we will be dragging behind other European countries in the humane control of deer; we will, I believe, be the only country in Western Europe still to allow the use of small shot in shotguns and we will still have the situation remaining of deer being wounded and undergoing intense suffering. I therefore
1310
also regret very much that it has proved necessary to retain the use of shotguns.
The proposed subsection (7)(b) refers to any smooth bore gun of 12-bore gauge and that, I feel, is rather too restrictive. I suggest it should be brought into line with the preceding provision so as not to allow any smooth bore gun of "not less gauge" than 12-bore. With the larger gauges one has the advantage of a larger shot capacity, which of course will produce a denser shot pattern and increase the chances of an effective kill. In the same subsection, where it specifies the shot size, it specifies only one shot size—"this shot shalt thou use and no other"—which I feel is rather too rigid. I suggest that it should be a minimum size and that scope should be given for the use of a larger size of shot. There are various sizes on the market and the larger size has greater striking energy, and so I suggest that there should be rather more scope in the choice of size of shot.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for his remarks about farmers' crops and that they should be a prime consideration of the proposed committee. I very much welcome that. I think I should tell him that we farmers are normally a suspicious lot; we have to put up with the Almighty and his weather, but we also have to put up with politicians, who are far worse, and that is why I probably treated the noble Lord's Bill with a certain amount of suspicion.
As he knows, I am more than happy to accept this new provision in conjunction with the one he will move shortly concerning the proposed committee, and I know that the NFU is too, as he intimated. I must agree—as I have always agreed, even on Second Reading—that the rifle is a better weapon. We have discussed this at great length and I know the noble Lord accepts that at the moment we are not ready for it. I am sorry about that, but as we all know there are conditions of safety and the need for people to be educated before we can reach that stage. However, I accept that we should try to move that way.
The noble Lord mentioned a compromise. Your Lordships must realise that Lord Northfield has been a

1311
master of negotiation over the Bill. Frankly, I thought that we should never reach agreement. We have, and in my view a great deal of the tribute for that, indeed all of it, must go to the noble Lord.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps it is in order for me to add a word of agreement and of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Like all compromises, this one is less than perfect. I have been concerning myself throughout the passage of the Bill with the legal side of matters and I am still not entirely happy with the wording of his proposed Amendment. For instance, I am not sure that it will be easy to satisfy a court under paragraph (b)(ii) that one's nibbled turnip had been nibbled the previous night by deer of the same species as the next morning is lying dead. Perhaps a little more consideration could be given to this matter on Third Reading, because it is very nearly a nonsense. I am sure that with good will and slightly better drafting it could be made better.
So far as the use of the shotgun is concerned, I think that I agree with my noble friend Lord Swansea that paragraph (b) should be drafted so as to read "not less than 5·2 millimetres", rather than "of 5.2 millimetres". That would give discretion to the particular user of the shotgun who may happen to have shotgun cartridges of large size which would do the job just as well as those which have been prescribed.
I want to refer to the question of deer drives, which I do not think has been mentioned previously. It caused a great deal of thought and, possibly, confusion at an earlier stage. I think it excellent that this matter, too, will be left in the hands of the Secretary of State as advised by his Advisory Committee. The great merit of a compromise such as this is that it leaves the problem to be decided by those who have to make decisions in the light of the prevailing circumstances. The noble Lord has produced letters from two chief constables which give him solace, or at any rate satisfaction. I am not going to rock the boat more than to say that I have had letters from chief constables, who are perhaps rather nearer to urban areas or conurbations, who said that they would be worried by the issue of firearms certificates. I think that only
1312
time will show the Secretary of State how he is to operate it, and it may be that one area would be treated quite differently from another, not from the point of view of education or availability, but simply from the point of view of the number of people who happen to live in an area, and the desirability of letting off high velocity rifles within it. This is the merit of the Secretary of State making orders in the future, and as such I join with others in welcoming this compromise, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, upon his considerable devotion to duty.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful for what noble Lords have said; they have been very indulgent in my weeks of negotiations. I should like to mention two points. I will gladly consider before Third Reading the point raised on paragraph (b). On sub-paragraph (ii), dealing with the same species question, I should say that this provision has been put in very recently, because noble Lords and others interested in deer were anxious to secure that there was some onus on the farmer to prove that in using the exemption provided here he is actually shooting at least something like the deer which had been causing the damage. The danger was previously that it was merely a case of deer having caused damage and he could take a pot shot at the red deer, even though a roe deer or some other deer had been causing the damage. This is simply an attempt slightly to narrow the circumstances in which the farmer can act, and I have put it in under pressure. Although I will consider the point of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I hope that at Third Reading I can say that I have convinced him that we should stick to it, but I give an undertaking to have a word about this before Third Reading—
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should like to raise a point with the noble Lord before he sits down. I apologise in that I have probably not been paying attention. In the Bill as it came through Committee, paragraph (c) of subsection (7) seems to have got lost in the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I thought it was desirable that we should at this stage try to prevent any possibility of deer drives. Can the noble Lord reassure me on that point?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has indicated, it is part of the compromise that we do not at this point outlaw deer drives. This is part of the agreement with the National Farmers' Union. But I should point out that in Amendment No. 53, which we are discussing together with this Amendment, the Minister is given the power to prescribe conditions to be attached to the use of firearms or ammunition. That would enable him in the circumstances, and with restrictions that he would set out, to regularise deer drives in due course, after the advice of the Advisory Committee, and after talking with the NFU. That is the best we can do in the compromise that we have reached.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.44 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert—
("(7A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of the killing or attempted killing of any deer by using, as a slaughtering instrument, any smooth bore gun which is of not less gauge than 12 bore, has a barrel less than 24 inches (609·6 millimetres) in length and is loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than 203 inches (5·2 millimetres) in diameter.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 52A I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 63A and 68A. I do not think that there is any need for me to dwell at great length on this matter. These three Amendments are intended to resolve the problem of defining a slaughtering instrument for the purpose of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that the second and third Amendments remove the definition of a slaughtering instrument from Clause 21 entirely, and transfer it to the reference to a slaughtering instrument in Schedule 2, where it is given the meaning given to it in the Firearms Act. The new subsection which forms the first of these three Amendments introduces the idea of a different form of slaughtering instrument; namely, the sawn-off shotgun, which satisfies the technical specifications set out in this new subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert—
("(7A) The Secretary of State may by order, either generally or in relation to any area or any species of deer specified in the order, repeal subsection (7) above or amend it by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in that subsection, or by prescribing the conditions to be attached to the use of any firearm or ammunition.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("authorised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 57:
Transpose Clause 18 to after Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment putting the clause to a more appropriate point in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power to grant licences]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("3(2)") and insert ("(Taking etc. of live deer)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to these two Amendments, Nos. 58 and 59 together. Both are drafting Amendments, consequent on Amendments that we made at an earlier sitting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("3(2)(b)") and insert ("(Taking etc. of live deer)(a)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60:
Transpose Clause 19 to after Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that this is a drafting Amendment. It merely seeks to put Clause 19 in the right order.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.50 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 61A:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales
.—(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales, consisting of such members as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may from time to time appoint and particularly including nominees of such bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of agriculture, forestry and deer and nature conservation.
(2) The duties of the said Committee shall be—

(a) to advise the Minister on any question which he may refer to that Committee in connection with deer;

(b) to advise on weapons and ammunition to be used for the killing of deer and the areas where such weapons and ammunition are to be used;

(c) to keep under review, and to advise the Minister on, measures needed for the better management of deer in England and Wales.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61A. I accept readily Amendment No. 61B in the name of my noble friend; it is a drafting Amendment. Here we come to a slightly more difficult situation. I have said already that the Advisory Committee is part of the total compromise reached with the farming community. I would add that, of course, noble Lords opposite— the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret; the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is not here today; and others—have at earlier stages of the Bill strongly pressed for the introduction of an Advisory Committee. Could first of all give the broad justification, in addition to the issue of shotguns? The Advisory Committee, as set out in this Amendment, is in order to advise the Government (I shall come to the question of Ministers in a moment) on various matters concerning deer. The basic intention, in addition to advice about
1316
shotguns, is that in England and Wales we will gradually move towards the better management of deer. In Scotland we have the Red Deer Commission. In Scotland we have a sense of treating deer as a national, natural asset, and managing it.
No one would say that the circumstances in Scotland and England are identical, but there is a similarity. The population of deer in England is growing, and as the years go by it is becoming important to begin to manage deer in a conscious manner and to plan their future. At the moment, with great respect—I know my noble friend will allow me to say this—deer in England are considered wild animals and are dealt with by an Assistant Secretary, who covers, I understand, drugs, probation and all sorts of things. I hope we are going to move on from that state of affairs to conscious management under a Minister. As is set out in the Amendment, the intention is that the Minister of Agriculture should be the person appointing this Committee. This is because, as in Scotland—and I repeat, "as in Scotland", where the Department of Agriculture for Scotland accepts this responsibility—it is appropriate to begin moving deer from Home Office and cruelty to Minister of Agriculture and management.
I know that my noble friend is in a difficult situation. The Home Office does not want an Advisory Committee; but I think I am allowed to say that, in consultations with the Minister concerned at the Home Office, the Home Office is prepared to say, "We will not obstruct such an Advisory Committee provided that we, the Home Office, do not have to set it up and service it, listen to it and give it jobs to do, and assume responsibility for deer" But I know that, wearing another hat, my noble friend has to say that at the moment the Minister of Agriculture is not satisfied that he should take it over—and he has written to me to that effect. I will not read his letter out for that would unduly delay us, but that is a fair statement, that he is not ready to take this matter over.
My Lords, I understand that this should not be regarded as the end of the road. What is needed is for this House and for people outside, and I hope for the other place, to put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture so that he is able finally to say, "All right; I will accept

1317
this pressure, and I will begin steadily to accept this responsibility, starting with this Advisory Committee and perhaps broadening out in years to come". Because, as I understand it, if in years to come the Minister develops this sense of responsibility, it will be possible by Order in Council to transfer other functions in this Bill from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to the Minister of Agriculture, by means of a transfer of function order; so that gradually, using this as the opening, as the thin end of the wedge—I do not deny it for one moment—we begin to introduce into the situation the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture for the management of deer.
I hope that, if my noble friend has to repeat what I have said—namely, that the Minister of Agriculture is not persuaded —then those noble Lords who have joined me in helping this Bill forward will be outspoken in their condemnation of the Government's attitude on this and in their pressure on the Minister to accept the responsibility. I undertake that, if this clause is agreed at this stage, I will report back on Third Reading whether I have persuaded the Minister, with the help of noble Lords today, to accept this responsibility in some form. I cannot claim T will succeed, but I have a fair hope if noble Lords will back me.
I have just two other points to make. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with the NFU, pressed strongly that the farming community should have a clear right to membership of this Advisory Committee. That is safeguarded, not only by saying that they should be on the Committee but that they should be their nominees, and not their representatives. I think that is a very helpful step, although, of course, this must also apply to some other people who are equally interested in deer. Secondly, the noble Lord wrote to me and said that he hoped I would say a word about those farmers, landowners or others who were over-interested in conservation and never wanted any deer killed on their property. I can only say to him that I think an Advisory Committee as constituted under this new clause will have a broad enough membership. a balanced enough approach, to begin this process of management, so that anybody who does not agree with the proper culling of deer—I think there are very few people
1318
who do not agree with proper culling, but anybody who wants to preserve deer at all costs, so to speak—will, over a period of time, be educated into proper culling, into proper management, in a way that he would approve.
I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord that this is not an Advisory Committee for the permanent protection and conservation at all costs of deer: it is an Advisory Committee concerned with proper management, which includes proper culling. I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at some slight length on this issue, but it is a very important one, and I had to warn noble Lords in advance that my noble friend is likely to be slightly hostile on this issue. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will now call Amendment No. 61B, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 61 A.
7.58 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 61A, Amendment No. 61B:
Line 6, leave out ("appearing") and insert ("as appear").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps this would be an opportune moment for me to intervene so far as Amendment No. 61A is concerned.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I have called Amendment No. 61B. The noble Lord can speak to Amendment No. 61A also, but No. 61B is an Amendment to No. 61A and we must get that out of the way before we vote on the substantive one. It is the noble Lord's own Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In that case, my Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61B, an Amendment standing in my name, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me also to speak to Amendment No. 61A. As I was saying, my noble friend Lord Northfield, as I would expect, has put the position very fairly and very frankly, but it is a matter for your Lordships to resolve. I want to put the Government point of view, but 1 do not want to do it in any aggressive sense, and certainly not in any hostile sense. As noble Lords will know, we have come a

1319
long way in this Bill, and there is now a very large measure of agreement which some of us could not foresee a week or two ago. But as we understand the situation, there is no Ministerial function under this Bill, or indeed under any other legislation relating to deer.
It has been suggested that this Amendment is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs certainly does not consider that it can in any way be his responsibility, and presumably my noble friend has accepted that in moving Amendment No. 61A. Here, again, to impose the duty of appointing the members of the proposed committee on the Minister of Agriculture—who has no responsibilities whatever in relation to deer except in circumstances where they amount to an infestation by causing damage to crops or by spreading diseases —rightly or wrongly, seems to the Government to be unreasonable. I do not think that I can say any more because there is nothing more to say. The Government's view is that this is not a matter for either the Minister of State for Home Affairs or for the Minister of Agriculture. I have not yet heard your Lordships' views; but it is for you to decide whether this is an Amendment which you feel is desirable in the circumstances.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood): My Lords, the Question now is that Amendment No. 61A, as amended, be agreed to.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I should like very strongly to support the Amendment as put forward—and now amended—by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I have long had a growing conviction that the deer problem in England and Wales has grown to such proportions—insidiously almost, a phrase which I think I used during the Second Reading—that it must seriously be taken note of, and I would suggest, by the Minister of Agriculture. My interest in the problem we are discussing today, as is known to some of your Lordships. is widely spread. It includes interest and a certain degree of experience of deer control in Scotland. I am, in fact, a
1320
member of the Red Deer Commission which is charged with the control and conservation of red deer, mainly in the Highlands but all over Scotland. Their brief does not include the other deer, but, of course, it is the red deer which are the most numerous and which cause the most damage in Scotland. That is not the case, I think, mainly in England and Wales; but for five or six years I have seen intimately the work of the Red Deer Commission in carrying out those two functions of regulated control and conservation. I feel conviced that they fulfil a useful function in carrying the balance in an authoritative manner as between the farming community and the forestry community, on the one hand, and the deer forest owners on the other.
They are responsible to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I should have thought that there was a strong case for assuming that, if we set up an advisory committee, as is now suggested, which would bear a great deal of similarity to the Red Deer Commission in Scotland in its duties and functions, then it should be to the Minister of Agriculture that they are responsible.
My Lords, after all, there are other wild creatures for which the Ministry of Agriculture has long taken some responsibility; animals that do a certain amount of damage in farm crops, rabbits, rats—we could go on with a long list. There is some precedent, therefore, even if no strong precedent exists in any direction in relation to deer, for looking to the Minister of Agriculture to take some responsibility in this matter.
I have referred to the natural interest of the Minister of Agriculture in the interests of farmers and farm crops; but he has another interest which he exercises through his Forestry Commission, the Forestry Commission being responsible directly to the Minister of Agriculture. Not only do deer problems exist just in full in the woodlands in England and Wales but they were noticed there before they were noticeable in the farmlands. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two points. One is that the Forestry Commission, themselves, have long since banned the use of shotguns in their woods and utilise rifles for the proper control of deer in and around the margins of their woods. This is a

1321
point of passing interest. But the other point, which is, I believe, of interest and which relates to the same line of thought, is that when the representative organisation for the woodland growers, the private foresters of England and Wales, had this point put to them, they unanimously decided that they would wish to support a move to stop the use of shotguns in deer drives and to use only rifles as originally was suggested in this Bill.
My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will take another look at their attitude in this matter, and, in particular, that the Minister of Agriculture will do so, because the problem is such—and the population of various sorts of deer is so large now in the Southern half of the United Kingdom—that we cannot possibly ignore it or pretend that it and its attendant problems do not exist. These problems affect mainly the farmers and the foresters, both of whom look to the Minister of Agriculture for the protection of their interests. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, most strongly and I hope the Government will take another look at this matter.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and, in particular, what my noble friend Lord Dulverton has just said. I should not really comment too much on what he has said since he has said all that I should have liked to say. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, however, did invite noble Lords to show what they felt and that is why I am seeking to endorse precisely what my noble friend has just said. I feel that it is entirely right and logical that the Ministry of Agriculture should take the responsibility for the Advisory Committee, if we get this through, on this Bill. I thought for one moment that the noble Lord said that neither the Ministry of Agriculture nor the Ministry for Home Affairs should be responsible for this Bill; but, surely, somebody should be responsible! I am sure that it is only logical that the Minister of Agriculture should be so.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that I was one of those who was most keen on the setting up of
1322
the Advisory Committee. I should like to correct him on this. Although certainly I am keen to see it set up, when I heard about it what worried me slightly was that there was no time limit on it. It is easy often to decide to do something, but it is also very easy to get these suggestions and ideas pigeonholed. I should have liked to see some form of timing. If this Advisory Committee can get under way, I should like to feel that the Government would accept that there is a great degree of urgency about this. While I accept that it is possibly undesirable to write an actual time limit into the Bill, for that might be difficult for the Government, I hope that they will realise that the urgency is there; because I am sure there is a general feeling that it is essential to end the use of unsuitable weapons and methods of control of marauding deer.
I should also like to feel that an even balance of interests is fully represented on the Committee. There are occasions when nominees are appointed and there is sometimes an imbalance of interests. This is an important point to bear in mind. I hope very much the Government will bear that point in mind. I fully endorse and support wholeheartedly the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Lord DORMER: My Lords, may I also wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on the setting up of an Advisory Committee. It has worked well in Scotland and that is of great importance. It is also very important that deer should be properly managed in this country. In Scotland I think they are. For some reason in England there is a combination of great ignorance and vagueness in the matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has rightly said, we have come a long way in this Bill now. In the course of the Bill we have discussed poaching, the price of venison—which is now enormous—roe deer, the National Farmers' Union and their objections, the proper calibre rifles and the proper weapons that are to be used against deer, and the damage to crops which, as a practical farmer, I know is of great importance. In all these matters, the Ministry of Agriculture must inevitably take a keen interest. I was particularly

1323
pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that the chief constable of West Mercia had spoken in such approving terms regarding granting firearms certificates. I live in that police area and I feel sure that that is his view. I think that question has been overplayed.
An advisory body should consist of practical men who know deer and are in touch with them. The management of deer is essentially a practical question, and such a body of practical men could co-relate all conflicting interests and advise the Minister in a most valuable way, as happens in Scotland. I can see nothing but good coming from the appointment of such a body and I earnestly advocate that it should be set up. I hope very much that the Government w ill agree.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I add my support to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. It surprised me considerably that there is opposition from the Government that the Minister of Agriculture should not be closely bound up with this matter. As a rather simple minded man who lives in the country, it appears that the deer is the one creature which affects agriculture to its ultimate extent. I cannot see the Home Office, apart from the actual weapons being used to control these animals, being interested whether or not a farmer has had root crops eaten by deer. I should have thought that it was most logical that the Ministry of Agriculture should be the Department most deeply involved in this. I trust that the Government will change their minds.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am also disappointed to hear the Government's views. Having heard every speaker so far, I hope that the Minister will be able to convey back to the Government the views of your Lordships' House. This Amendment is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. The agreement has been reached, as some of your Lordships have confessed—and many more were convinced—from an absolutely impossible situation when this Bill commenced its passage through this House. That agreement has been reached not only speaks forcefully for the diplomacy of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but also for the value of your Lordships'
1324
House. For the Bill to founder now on what appears to be a technical problem between Government Departments would surely be a complete disaster.
I cannot understand how the Ministry of Agriculture can possibly fail to take responsibility for this matter. I am a practical farmer and, as matters stand at the moment, I apparently seldom agree with the current Minister of Agriculture. On this matter, he seems to have a completely indefensible case. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, unless anybody has objections, I should like to say something on this as I was the main objector. First of all, I welcome the agreement on behalf of the National Farmers' Union. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said concerning it being a priority regarding agricultural crops. I welcome his remarks about irresponsible conservationists concerning deer which wander on to other people's land.
I and the National Farmers' Union feel that it is vital for the Ministry of Agriculture to be in charge of this Committee. If they are not, the Bill is going to fall. It seems as though the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has now taken on my garb of the ugly sister—and I hope he enjoys it! This is an agricultural problem. If his civil servants could read Hansard some time, they will read that this has been my problem. I think—and I regret to say this—I am the only person who has divided the House on it. It is an agricultural problem and I ask them to read what our problems are. If they do that, and take any account of the matter—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has—they will see that the Ministry of Agriculture must deal with this Committee.
I cannot understand the argument at all. The Ministry of Agriculture say, I understand, that they have no responsibility for wild animals. They deal with rabbits and rabbit clearance societies. Surely these matters are Ministry of Agriculture problems. The deer lives on my land; what it eats is an agricultural or a forestry problem. It is almost as ludicrous as saying that it does not matter how many sheep one keeps on the hill. If there is not any food on the hill, one cannot keep sheep. It is the same with

1325
the deer. It is an agricultural problem and I am sorry for those who cannot see that. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He lives next door to me and will probably kill me next weekend!
I hope that the noble Lord will persuade his civil servants that this is a Ministry of Agriculture problem. We are telling him that they have to change. I do not see why we should always bow and scrape to the civil servants. I do not think they really mean that; they are just being naturally awkward—rather like me! This has been a masterpiece of negotiation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, with the National Farmers' Union and myself. Please do not spoil it now.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 61A, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders]:
8.19 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 10, line 24, at beginning insert—
(" (1A) Before making any order under this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult the Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales established under section (Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales) of this Act and such other bodies appearing to him to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on earlier discussions. The Amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult the Advisory Committee in making orders under the Act. It is partly consequential upon the discussion we had at an earlier sitting, when we said that the power to make orders under the Act would be put in more general form. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood): As an Amendment to that Amendment, I call Amendment No. 62A.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 62, Amendment No. 62A:
Line 6, leave out ("appearing") and insert ("as appear").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 11, leave out lines 9 to 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 52A. I think it is quite clear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
"(2) Except so far as the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will take my word that this is a technical Amendment. There is no problem. hidden or otherwise, in the wording, and I am sure that if there is my noble friend Lord Northfield will not hesitate to say so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Application to Northern Ireland
.—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland section 200) shall be omitted and the other provisions shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) for any reference to the Secretary of State, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland:

(b) for the reference in section 14 to the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860, there shall be substituted a reference to the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972;

(c) in section 16(1)(c) the words "or shotgun" shall be omitted;

(d) for any reference in section 16(2) to the chief officer of police, by whom the certificate mentioned in section 16(1)(c) of this Act was granted, there shall be substituted a reference to the Chief

1327
Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;

(e) in section 16(2)(c) after the reference (substituted by paragraph (d) above) to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary there shall be inserted the words or within such further time as the Chief Constable may in special circumstances allow";

(f) at the end of section 16 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) Where the Chief Constable gives a notice under subsection (2)(b) above, subsections (3) and (4) of section 25A of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (power of police to require surrender or disposal of firearms and ammunition in certain circumstances) shall apply with the substitution for references to the chief superintendent of references to the Chief Constable.";

(g) for the reference in section 18(5) to a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to any scheme made by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(h) at the end of section 18 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland may by order substitute for the reference to the period of five years in subsection (7) above, a reference to such other period as may be specified in the order.";

(i) for any reference in section 19 to the Nature Conservancy Council, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland;

(j) for any reference in section 21 to the Firearms Act 1968, and for the reference to section 57(4) of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively, reference to the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and a reference to section 50(1) of that Act.

(2) The power of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958; and any statutory rule made by virtue of this Act shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if it were a statutory instrument within the meaning of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak not only to Amendment No. 65 but 66, 69, 70, 71 and 72 as well. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough expected this stage of the Bill to be reached last week and very much regrets that he is not here to move these Amendments
1328
himself. His absence emphasises the difficulties in attending your Lordships' House for those who live in the further parts of the United Kingdom. In my wildest dreams I never expected to be involved with seeking legislation for Northern Ireland, but my noble friend asked me to move these for him.
I would say that the remainder of Ireland has already got some kind of deer legislation and the North of Ireland is probably the only country in the whole of Europe without any legislation whatsoever. The object of these Amendments is to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, and I am confident your Lordships will welcome such proposals. Your Lordships will see that there is some need for redrafting the proposals put forward by my noble friend and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for putting down Amendments to this Amendment. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65A:
In subsection (1) leave out ("the application of this Act to Northern Ireland section 20(1) shall be omitted and the other provisions") and insert ("its application to Northern Ireland this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subject to your Lordships' approval I should like to speak to Amendments No. 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E and 65F. These six Amendments are technical ones arising out of the Amendment that has just been proposed. As I say there is nothing hidden. They are in a sense drafting Amendments of a technical nature. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I say a few words. I am slightly unhappy about Amendment No. 65E to which my noble friend spoke in moving these Amendments to the main Amendment, because in effect at this point he is deleting the application of the Advisory Committee to Northern Ireland. I fully accept that the clause on an Advisory Committee should be called, Advisory Committee on England and Wales. It would be logical to do so. But, if we have now included Northern Ireland in the Bill, I must give notice that at Third Reading we may need to bring back Northern Ireland within the ambit of the Advisory Committee. I issue that short

1329
word of warning so that noble Lords will not be surprised if we have to return to this issue on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65B:
In paragraph (g) of subsection (1) leave out ("for the reference in section 18(5)") and insert ("in section 18(5) for the reference").
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65C:
At end of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) insert "and for the reference to any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, by or under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Rabies Act 1974 or section 9 or 10 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 there shall be substituted a reference to any power conferred on the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland by or under the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 or the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975".
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65D:
Leave out paragraph (h) of subsection (1).
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65E:
After paragraph (i) of subsection (1) insert—
("( ) section (Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales) shall be omitted;
( ) in section 20, subsection (1) shall be omitted and in subsection (1A) for the words from "the Advisory Committee" to "such other bodies" there shall be substituted the words "such bodies";").
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65F:
Leave out paragraph (j) of subsection (1) and insert—
(" (j) for any reference in section 21 to the Firearms Act 1968 there shall be substituted a reference to the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;
1330
(k) for the reference in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 there shall be substituted a reference to section 50(1) of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.").
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("or Northern Ireland").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("Act" to ("shall") in line 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can take this briefly. The Bill as drafted provides that it shall come into operation on 1st November 1977, with the exception of Part III which should now read Part II which is to come into effect three months after Royal Assent. This provision was reasonable when the Bill was introduced but the passage of time has made this Amendment desirable. If the Bill reaches the Statute Book, it would be about mid-July. It is, therefore, unreasonable to provide for one part to come into operation in mid-October and the rest of the Bill to come into effect a fortnight later. The effect of the Amendment is to bring all the provisions of the Bill into force on the 1st November. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 68:
Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new
Schedule—
(" CLOSE SEASONS
RED DEER (Cervus elaphus)
Stags: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.
Hinds: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
FALLOW DEER (Dama dama)
Buck: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.
Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
SIKA DEER (Cervus Nippon)
Stags: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.
Hinds: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
ROE DEER (Capreolus capreolus)
Buck: 21st October to 15th March inclusive.
Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
MUNTJAC DEER (Muntiacus species)
Buck: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
CHINESE WATER DEER (Hydropotes inermis)
Buck: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.
Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading much concern was expressed over the differences in dates of close seasons between Scotland, England and Wales, and now we hope it will be between Northern Ireland as well. I think these differences were fully justified. There was difficulty in the Border areas where you had only to step one or two paces over the boundary and you were breaking the law if you were doing what you were doing on the other side. As yet we have no customs barriers or other checks on the Border and that the two countries should have so many different seasons seems to me totally incongruous. The seasons for everything else it is legal to shoot in this country—certainly all the game seasons—coincide in the United Kingdom as a whole. For instance, you would not start shooting grouse in England on the 1st August and in Scotland on the 12th, and I do not see why for deer you should start on one date in one country and on another date in the other.
I have publicised these proposals as widely as I could. I have sent copies to the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, to the Forestry Commission, to the Minister and various other people, and until today I have had no objections of any consequence, except for the question that some people feel that the seasons should all start on the first of the month. I do not think it is a very valid ground for complaint. If it is maintained that the police cannot remember these dates, it is unfortunate for the police.
These seasons should be arranged to suit the animals concerned. In any case, the police are not the only people concerned. People who have killed deer on both sides of the Border, if these proposals go through, would have to remember an enormous number of dates and it would be very complicated for them. I understand that the Forestry Commission have discussed these proposals but they are somewhat divided among themselves and have not come to any conclusion so far. I have heard nothing from the Minister about the proposals;
1332
I hope that he is satisfied.
In Scotland, I gather that there have been consultations with the Red Deer Commission and that they were not keen on having any changes in Scotland. There appears to be one very minor difficulty— it is the only major change proposed for Scotland—namely, that if the season for red hinds was extended into the autumn there might be difficulty with their counting and census work. That is not a very valid point because the Red Deer Commission have compulsory rights of entry in any case. However, the Red Deer Commission, to my mind, are not the right people to consult in Scotland on deer as a whole. They have a knowledge of hill red deer, but many of them really have not a very great knowledge. I would, of course, exclude my noble friend sitting in front of me who has an intimate knowledge of all kinds of deer; but certain members of the Commission might almost be called "anti-deer". One of them, at a symposium last year, actually advocated killing roe does when they had their fawns afoot, lying hidden, so that the fawn would probably have died. I am sure that your Lordships would never agree with that sort of treatment.
Anyway, the seasons in Scotland are somewhat of a farce because they do not apply on enclosed land, and already a shockingly high proportion of red stags are killed out of season. Also, as roe and sika deer are more often than not killed on enclosed land, they are also getting shot all the year round. A change is badly needed, my Lords. I think it might cause confusion if I were to go through the Schedules in detail: I think they speak mainly for themselves.
There are a number of people who have doubts on certain particular dates, and it is possible that the answer is that there should be round-the-table discussions. If the Bill goes through as it stands, the advisory body would be able to advise the Minister in England. The Minister in Scotland has powers to alter any close season by order in any case, except for red deer. Therefore, it would be possible even after the passing of the Bill, with goodwill on all sides, to try and get coordinated seasons for deer. I beg to move.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I should just like to say that I did

1333
not quite follow what my noble friend was saying about co-ordinating the closed season for stags in Scotland. As regards red deer stags, 1st May to 30th June does not really apply to Scotland at all. The close season for red deer stags in Scotland is 20th October. I may be wrong about that—have I got the wrong paper? I should have thought, my Lords, that this is just the sort of subject where we should leave well alone and let the Advisory Committee advise the Minister. We should not pre-empt the work of the Advisory Committee.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Burton, I must confess that I am one of those who, like my noble friend who has just sat down, feel that would be a good way of dealing with it and that we should not attempt to change the dates as they appear in the Bill at the present time. I do not feel that I can support this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but in view of what the two last speakers have said, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Burton, feels that he should proceed with this matter. There seems to be some conflict and I think we ought to get the Bill absolutely correct. If there is any doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may feel that this should be withdrawn and looked at again.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has just said, and to record two points. First, the Minister, by means of this Bill, has power to amend close seasons if evidence reaches him that they need to be changed. That is a very important point, so I do not think the noble Lord need ask for a final answer on this issue today. The second point is that, by and large, the Bill as drafted repeats the Deer Act provisions of 1963, which have worked satisfactorily in terms of dates for 14 years; so there is no prima facie case for their alteration in England.
I accept that an effort would be worth while, where it is appropriate, to bring the close seasons into line, and what I would undertake to do, if the noble Lord would accept it, and if the Bill becomes law, would be to ask the Minister to ask the
1334
Advisory Committee to look at this urgently. Also, I should be glad, as a preliminary to that, if the noble Lord feels anxious on the issue, to try to get round the table in advance with the two Departments concerned, together with the noble Lord and other interested parties, to see whether, even at an earlier stage, there is some hope of getting agreement on this issue. I hope that assurance will enable the noble Lord to feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord is once more full of diplomacy. That is the way in which he has conducted the whole of the operations in connection with this Bill. It really makes it almost impossible for me not to withdraw the Amendment. However, I should like to emphasise that there is a great need to co-ordinate these dates and I would hope that, with the assurances that have been given, something will be done. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.35 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 12, line 29, at end insert ("(within the meaning of section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendments Nos. 52A and 63A. I beg to move this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 en bloc:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
("Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom").
Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
("Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland

1969 c. 16 (N.I.).

The Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.")

In the Title, line 3, after ("Wales") insert ("and Northern Ireland").
Page 14, Line 5, after ("Wales") insert ("and Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these Amendments. They are all intended to bring Northern Ireland into line. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
  ROYAL HIGH SCHOOL, EDINBURGH: ALTERATIONS
  ROYAL HIGH SCHOOL, EDINBURGH: ALTERATIONS