Sitting of 30 June 1978

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Land Drainage (Scotland) Amendment Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (GOVERNMENT)
11.5 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Is it suggested that we consider at the same time the second motion in the right hon. Gentleman's name—
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was about to suggest that in my preamble.
The arrangements for direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 have been renewed for one year at a time for each of the past three years. The Government want to return as much responsibility as they can to representatives of the community in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. But this has not yet proved feasible, and I therefore seek the approval of the House today to an order which will extend the statutory basis for direct rule for a further year from 16th July.
The security situation continues to improve, but we cannot yet dispense with the emergency legislation. For this reason, I shall at the end of this debate be seeking the renewal of the emergency
1704
provisions under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I suggest that it would therefore be for the convenience of the House if the substance of the two motions were discussed in one debate.
Mr. Speaker: May I know whether that is acceptable to all hon. Members?
Mr. Airey Neave: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is to us.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the debate may continue for one and a half hours after 4 o'clock on both motions?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but it means that there will be a wider and more reasonable debate if we proceed in that way.
Mr. Mason: I wish, first, to make clear where the Government stand on the fundamental question of the constitutional status of the Province. It will be for the people of Northern Ireland themselves to decide whether or not they wish to continue to be part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Unless and until the citizens of Northern Ireland themselves elect for something different, it remains part of the United Kingdom. Secondly, no solution can be imposed without the acquiescence of both communities in the Province.
We must concentrate on how to return responsibility for a range of Government services to an elected authority in Northern Ireland. This can be done only under arrangements which would be acceptable to both sides of the community. I do not believe that any political or constitutional advance can be made without the broad consent of both sides.
We shall continue, as we have done, to do all in our power to combat the activities of terrorists. Until such time as we can devolve power to some form of local administration, we shall continue direct rule in as sensitive a manner as possible. This has been the consistent basis of our policy, and it is the only defensible course to follow in the immediate future.
As we are to debate the two motions together, I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the House if I were to

1705
review briefly the Government's policies in Northern Ireland under four heads: the security situation, economic matters, the political and constitutional position, and social affairs.
I take, first, security. As I have said before, when we take stock of Northern Ireland affairs, we must look for signs of steady progress rather than immediate dramatic results. The past six months have had both good signs and bad. The La Mon House bombing disaster in mid-February was an appalling act of inhumanity. The admission of the cold-blooded killing of a wounded policeman in captivity only two weeks ago was no less horrible.
There are, apparently, no depths to which the Provisional IRA will not sink. Those who continue to bless them with the title of freedom fighters should not forget that. Nor should they forget that the men of violence have been condemned utterly by leaders of all sections of the community, particularly strongly by political and Church leaders of the minority. The suggestion that I or my officials should parley with their representatives is abhorrent to me.
There have been periods of relative tranquillity this year, partly the result of the vigilance of the security forces in anticipating and preventing violence. A number of town and village centres, such as Cookstown, Bangor and even Londonderry, which have hitherto been enclosed by barriers, have been opened up to traffic. The people of Northern Ireland have shown both courage and good sense in refusing to be provoked by the shocking deeds of the terrorists. I pay tribute to their calmness, and thank all those who have spoken out for it.
Six months is a short-term view, and in assessing progress we are entitled to paint on a much broader canvas. Let me look back a couple of years and recall the level of terrorism two years ago. In the first six months of 1976, 175 people died; in the first six months of 1977 the figure was 79. So far this year, in spite of the La Mon House incident and the deaths of only a week ago, 49 people have been killed. Every death is a death too many, and every one demeans us all. But the improving trend is clear. In the first six months of 1976
1706
there were 890 shootings. So far this year the figure has fallen to 417.
Gradually normality is returning to the Province—as witness the improvement in the number of tourists now beginning to come to Northern Ireland once again. Last year there were 47,000 more tourists than in 1976.
Normality has not arrived yet, nor am I making extravagant claims. But the Government are firm in their resolve, and they are supported in this resolve by the steadfast attitude of both the security forces and the people of the Province. Those who break the law will be dealt with as the criminals they are, and will be put where they belong—behind bars. Special category status is being phased out, despite the sordid and revolting protests of some of the prisoners. There will be no amnesty for convicted criminals. Those guilty of murder, bombing, and assault, will pay the price demanded by law. Only so can the country return to peaceful conditions.
We believe in the rule of law. I was therefore happy, as part of our response to the recent report of Amnesty International, to accept a recommendation made by the Chief Constable. The Government have set up an independent committee of inquiry to consider the present police procedures and practice relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences and to consider the operation of the present machinery for dealing with complaints against the police. I have undertaken that the report of the inquiry will be published, and I hope that this will allay any anxieties that the House may have on this matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
Mr. Mason: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
As for the allegations of maltreatment in individual cases, I can only repeat what I have said before. There is provision for such allegations to be investigated by the police and for their report to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who—as Amnesty International recognised—is an independent officer of the Crown charged with deciding whether criminal proceedings should be brought.
For allegations of disciplinary offences, there is the Police Complaints Board, also

1707
independent, which sees the papers relating to all cases of complaint. Therefore, let those who have brought anonymous allegations against unnamed police officers take their evidence in confidence to the DPP, rather than publicising slurs against a police force which is coping with all the strains and stresses of the fight against terrorism. I have asked Amnesty International to co-operate in this endeavour.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he had any response from Amnesty International to his appeal to it to come forward, to come out from behind the cloak of anonymity and give the names of the people concerned in the report?
Mr. Mason: No Sir. I am sorry to say that I have not yet had such a response. Amnesty International has replied to me, because of the comments I made in the House during Question Time, splitting hairs on the accuracy of what I said. But I must repeat that if Amnesty International has medical evidence from the complainants—the witnesses—I hope that with their co-operation it will go to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions, so that he can examine those complaints and furnish the information flowing from them to the inquiry.
Mr. Michael English: One quite understands my right hon. Friend's desire that people should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and so on, but does he not make a distinction between sufficient evidence of a complaint to bring a charge in court—a prosecution—and sufficient evidence of a complaint not to bring a charge in court, not to bring a prosecution, but to give reasonable cause to believe that the events occurred?
Mr. Mason: Amnesty International suggests that maltreatment is taking place. It has not yet given us the evidence and the persons' names—evidence that will prove that maltreatment is taking place. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to assess that evidence himself.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I do not want to take up any time during my right hon. Friend's speech because I shall have something to say later, but is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday afternoon a case was thrown out of court
1708
in Northern Ireland by a judge who said that he was not prepared to convict, on the ground that the person involved had been maltreated and that he did not accept the excuses put forward by the police, who said that the person had not been maltreated. When my right hon. Friend talks about unnamed police officers, will he tell me and everyone else in Northern Ireland how one obtains the names of the people engaged in this business?
Mr. Mason: If the evidence can be forthcoming from Amnesty International and its witnesses to the DPP, we may find the names. My hon. Friend only proves to me that if, in the opinion of the judge of the court, a person's confession before the court has been obtained under duress, the judge can discharge that person. That form of court still allows that to happen, and I believe that to be something in favour of the procedures of the law in Northern Ireland.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary is making good progress in equipping itself, in men, materials and morale, so that it can increasingly take the lead in maintaining law and order throughout the Province. In many areas this is the case already. The police are doing their job, on their own, with the Regular Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment in the background to be called upon if required.
Recruitment added 143 to the regular force in the first five months of this year. It now stands at 5,835. Its weaponry has been further improved. Nearly 2,000 policemen have now been trained in the use of the M1 carbine. The programme of providing the RUC with steel-protected Land Rovers is going steadily forward. For security reasons, I cannot say publicly how many are now in operation or on order, but I can say that the Police Authority hopes to see the delivery programme completed by the end of this year. An important computer-based command and control system will shortly be installed in the Belfast area, which together with a Province-wide teleprinter system, will greatly improve communications and so increase the efficiency of the force in its use of resources.
The UDR is also steadily building its strength. It is getting close to its target of 2,500 professional full-time men, and

1709
there are now 14 operational platoons fully recruited and at work. This has made it possible to allocate further territorial areas of responsibility to the UDR, which in these areas becomes the first line of military support for the police.
Meanwhile, the Regular Army still has a vital role to play in supporting the rule of law, and I pay tribute to the dedication with which these soldiers—like the other branches of the security forces—have continued over long hours to offer protection to the innocent and join in tracking down the terrorist.
As I forecast last December, this autumn we are introducing another resident infantry battalion to the Province, replacing one of the units which do a four months' tour of duty. It will be based at Aldergrove. It will stay for 18 months, and the soldiers will be accompanied by their families. I have stressed the advantages of resident battalions before. They gain greater familiarity with local conditions and the neighbourhood, and represent a step towards normality. Although we are still some way from that in security terms, we are moving steadily towards it and will not be diverted.
I turn now to the Government's industrial and employment policies in Northern Ireland. I cannot but stress the very serious nature of the economic problems facing the Province. The unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is nearly twice that in the United Kingdom as a whole. In some parts of the Province, male unemployment is almost 30 per cent. The "troubles" have increased the difficulties of overcoming grave structural economic problems and geographical disadvantages.
All the people of Northern Ireland should now be pulling together with the Government in the common effort to overcome these difficulties. That is one reason why I attach great importance to the Economic Council. This is a forum where representatives of both sides of industry and independent experts can meet; a place where they can analyse economic problems together and consider how management and unions can tackle their common task in partnership with the Government. The trade unions in particular have done sterling work in holding
1710
industry and production together during the troubled years.
For our part, the Government have intensified their effort to attract new investment to the Province from overseas—particularly from the United States of America and Europe—and to encourage the expansion of existing investments. In support of this, we have a range of industrial incentives designed, in scale and character, to meet Northern Ireland's special needs. Our aim is to make the Province truly competitive in the search for mobile international investment. I have myself visited the United States, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been there several times, as part of a vigorous promotional effort.
There have been some encouraging responses. Last year, American-owned companies increased their stake in Northern Ireland by £55 million. Du Pont announced a major modernisation and re-equipment programme at May-down, outside Londonderry. Goodyear has announced a major new research and development investment, centred at its Craigavon plant. AVX will be opening a plant at Coleraine, which will provide 600 new jobs. General Motors has just announced plans to invest £l5 million in a factory at Dundonald, manufacturing seat belts—another 600 jobs.
These developments, especially those which represent brand-new investment for Northern Ireland, are a most encouraging sign. They show that hard-headed business men believe in the future of the Province and the opportunities that it can offer. To this list, we can add the recent news that the German firm of Machinenfabrik—MAN—has decided to establish a joint undertaking with Harland and Wolff to build medium-speed diesel engines—a decision which will safeguard 400 jobs in the company's engine works.
These are, of course, most welcome developments. But let us not be deluded. Even this limited scale of success has not come easily—every investment has had to be fought for and won—and it would be wrong to disguise the fact that much still remains to be done to tackle the appalling level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Convincing the world of the opportunities available in the Province is often an uphill task. Northern Ireland needs all the advantages it can offer to

1711
investors, not least its fine industrial relations record. This is an asset that the Province cannot afford to lose.
I claim that the Government have made a massive commitment to alleviating the worst effects of the present recession. Under the industrial training and job creation programmes, we currently provide places for almost 6,500 people. The youth opportunities programme will provide an additional 2,000 opportunities in training and work preparation for young people who would otherwise be unemployed. Through the grant aid training scheme we contribute to training a further 6,000 people, while employment and recruitment subsidies, including temporary employment subsidy, helped to provide or retain some 31,000 jobs.
We have also moved swiftly in the case of the Northern Ireland meat industry, protecting not only 3,000 jobs but also the whole future of the industry itself, which was threatened as a result of changes in green pound rates. We have helped milk producers when their returns threatened to fall far below those in Great Britain.
I can assure the House that the Government will continue their vigorous efforts in industry, commerce and agriculture as part of their policy of giving the people of the Province the opportunity to help themselves. But I underline "help themselves", for it is the people of Northern Ireland who can do most to create the orderly and peaceful environment which is essential if their grave economic difficulties are to be overcome.
I turn now to political and constitutional matters. There has been no shift in the Government's fundamental approach to the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom can be made only with the consent of the majority of the people who live there. That is the position of all the major parties at Westminster. It is the position of the SDLP. The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for decision by the people of Northern Ireland. The Government cannot and will not seek to impose constitutional change. Such a course would be morally indefensible, and if any appreciable body of political opinion were opposed to it it would be foredoomed to failure.
1712
People in Northern Ireland have differing long-term aspirations, but they will not be coerced by violence into changing their views. We want to create conditions in which the people of Northern Ireland, free from coercion, can decide matters for themselves. We want to see a locally elected administration with substantial powers. I have already said that I am prepared to talk to the parties on the basis of the criteria set out in the five-point plan that I published last November.
Those five points are: (a) there should be a single Assembly, elected by proportional representation; (b) that Assembly should exercise real responsibility over a wide range of functions and have a consultative role in legislation; (c) the arrangements should be temporary and envisage progress to full legislative devolution; (d) although temporary, they must be durable which means that minority interests must be safeguarded and that Northern Ireland political parties must be prepared to make them work; (e) they must make good administrative sense.
Such principles are surely unexceptionable, and I have yet to hear of any one opposed to them. The main parties in Northern Ireland have already had some exposition of how they might work out in practice. But I emphasise that I am not committed to any particular cut-and-dried arrangements. I would be happy to discuss proposals significantly different from those which have so far been suggested, but they must be capable of securing a wide degree of acceptance in both parts of the community.
My plan, which was prepared after earlier discussion with the parties and in the light of their views, provides the broad principles within which there is, I believe, the best prospect of finding an acceptable system. Such acceptance will be achieved only if the new arrangements provide an opportunity for political representatives of the majority and the minority communities to participate on a fair basis in a partnership administration.
That principle has consistently governed our policies, and I have yet to hear of any major party in this House which departs from it. It will need to be observed not only in the kind of arrangements I have put to the parties

1713
but in any scheme to create a new level of local government. Any arrangements devised must, to be successful, be acceptable to both the majority and the minority in Northern Ireland, and to the House of Commons. A system without proper safeguards for minority interests is unlikely to win this all-round support.
Because I need the co-operation of the main political parties, it is not in my gift to command success in making progress. I am dependent on the willingness of others. I have taken the initiative. I have sat down with the politicians. I have put forward proposals. I believe that those proposals deserve more serious consideration by the party leaders than they have so far received.
In the meantime, I want to ensure that as much use as possible is made of the experience and expertise of the members of the 26 locally-elected district councils. Thirty per cent. of the members of the health and personal social service boards are already nominated by district councils; and 40 per cent. of the education and libraries boards are similarly nominated. The district councils are widely consulted on a range of matters which, under direct rule, are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. These consultative arrangements have proved valuable, and I would aim to extend and develop them as far as that is possible.
The House will have noted that additional minor powers are given to district councils in some of the draft Orders in Council published recently. The draft rent order gives district councils the power to issue certificates of fitness or unfitness and to enforce the carrying out of necessary repairs. These are minor, but important, matters. I was pleased to note that the extra powers given to district councils in the rent order were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) as well as by Opposition Members.
As direct rule continues, it will be necessary to look carefully at the legislation which is coming forward, to see what responsibilities of this kind should properly be given to district councils. As part of this process, I shall look to see whether the right principles are being properly applied in the allocation of functions and responsibilities between, on the one hand, district councils and, on the
1714
other, the regional government which is now being administered by Her Majesty's Government. In doing this, we shall have regard to the recommendations of the Macrory Report and the subsequent experience of their working. The House will be able, as legislation is brought forward, to judge, before the next renewal debate, whether we are striking the right balance.
But it is not only continuing violence, economic problems and political divisions that are affecting the quality of life in Northern Ireland. The Province faces massive social problems, and over the past four years we have been getting to grips with these. The things we have done cover far too wide an area for me to review them adequately in this speech, but I should like to run quickly over some of the ground.
On the environmental front, there is the Belfast Transportation Plan. This was published in 1969. Among other projects, £5 million was spent on improvements to the Belfast Central rail line and station. In 1976, we published further proposals, and after a full public inquiry I announced, in April 1978, a massive programme of improvements to the roads, railways and public services within Belfast, costing £100 million over the next nine years.
Belfast, in common with many other cities in the United Kingdom, is suffering from urban decay and massive social and unemployment problems. Following the publication of an interdepartmental report in 1976, the Government have made extra resources available, including £130 million over the next five years for the provision and improvement of housing. On urban renewal, a planning team has been set up, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Minister of State, which includes representatives from Government, local government and the statutory boards. This team now coordinates the programme to improve employment prospects, health and social services, and educational and recreational facilities. It works in close consultation with voluntary bodies and local community representatives.
On Northern Ireland's social problems, progress is being made. In the past year, 34 shebeens, or illegal drinking clubs, have been closed down. We have recently initiated the "Outset" survey of all the

1715
physically handicapped in Northern Ireland. We are about to publish our proposals for improving services for the mentally handicapped, and a major review is in progress on law and practice on the care and treatment of children and young persons, based on the Black Committee.
In all these fields, we have to take the greatest pains to ensure the fullest possible consultation with local feeling. We have done this on the sensitive and difficult question of divorce. The House will recall that the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order, which was recently approved, was introduced after the widest possible consultation—carried out by my hon. Friend who is responsible for divorce law reform—and was prompted by the considered advice of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The Commission is an important organ within the Province for expressing views on social issues which raise questions of human rights. Its work, along with that of the Ombudsman, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Agency, means that the position of the minority in Northern Ireland is both scrutinised and safeguarded.
We are not seeking to standardise Northern Ireland or to eliminate its regional and cultural characteristics. What we are seeking to do is to preserve what is best in the Province and to improve what is not. This has always been the touchstone of our social policies in Northern Ireland under direct rule.
The Government are engaged in the direct rule of Northern Ireland only because, so far, the parties have not been prepared to agree on a basis on which power can be handed back to the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, we could do so tomorrow if we had no care or concern for the minority community. But care and concern are in fact the continuing hallmarks of all we try to do in the Province.
As far as we can do so, we are determined to act with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, whether in making social reforms or in bringing about constitutional advances. We have no wish to impose change which the people of Northern Ireland do not want. We must remain at all times sensitive to the views and feelings of local people.
1716
This means that we must keep open the Government's contacts with the Northern Ireland people, including, of course, the leaders of the political parties there.
To this end I have tried, ever since I became Secretary of State, to achieve the most wide-ranging contacts I can with all kinds of people in Northern Ireland. The same is true of the four hard-working junior Ministers, who are now familiar figures around the Province. My colleagues in this House have had to adjust to a triangular pattern of travel involving Belfast, London and their constituency, whether it is Mansfield, Birmingham or Liverpool. I should like to offer them my personal thanks for all that they are doing. I understand exactly what it means, and I am sure that their constituents share my appreciation.
I hold, and will continue to hold, periodic meetings with local political leaders to exchange views on security policy and on economic problems, as well as to discuss possible constitutional advances. As long as direct rule has to continue for want of an acceptable alternative, it will be conducted with care and concern for the views and interests of both of the traditions which make up the life of Northern Ireland. In this way I hope to create in the minds and hearts of the people the kind of trust and understanding which alone can make possible constitutional advances of a widely acceptable kind. At the same time, we shall continue unabated the fight against the men of violence, whose methods and tactics have been so completely rejected by the people of Northern Ireland.
11.38 a.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I am sure that the House would like to thank the Secretary of State for his account of the situation in Northern Ireland. We shall certainly support these orders, which are necessary to combat the continuing emergency in the Province and to provide for an extension of direct rule.
It is quite apparent that the terrorist organisations in the Province still have the manpower and the armament to continue this bloody and useless conflict. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that those who talk about parleying with terrorists at the present time must be out of their minds. I am very glad to

1717
hear that that is not in the Secretary of State's mind in any way at all.
We are rather concerned about the question of direct rule in various ways, although we shall not be opposing the extension order. It still seems to be clear from the Secretary of State's remarks that he has not an agreed policy for the constitution of the Province at the present time. When, for example, he says that he wants to return responsibility to elected representatives, we should like to examine further what he means. We have been considering this. When he says that more power should be returned to district councils, surely this points the way ahead to a local government solution at the present time, at any rate as a beginning.
The Secretary of State dealt with the economy. I should like to consider further and comment on what he said when we debate the Appropriation Order next week.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the position in Northern Ireland is extremely serious, although I welcome investment in new enterprises, such as that of General Motors. We Conservatives recognise that the Government will have to continue providing substantial assistance to Northern Ireland's industry for some time to come. It has been pointed out by our spokesmen that, like other regions with special problems, Northern Ireland needs special measures if these problems are to be solved. However, I should like a further opportunity to discuss that matter, perhaps next week when we discuss the Appropriation Order.
I should like to begin by thanking the Secretary of State and his staff for arranging the visit of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition 10 days ago, and enabling her to visit the security forces. The right hon. Gentleman also invited many representatives of the community to meet her, and she paid a number of visits, including one to a factory and another to the Rathmore Grammar School, as well as meeting a huge number of people in Belfast. She also visited the father of a young married woman victim of the La Mon House massacre. This was very moving for her. But, of course, we were made to realise that the people thought to be responsible for this massacre are now in the Republic. This brought
1718
up the question of extradition, which I shall deal with later.
My right hon. Friend was deeply impressed by the determination of the security forces to see things through, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, their morale is not helped by the ever-present feeling of injustice about their pay. I do not believe that this will be solved until a Government come to power with the intention of putting it right and of obtaining the comparability that is necessary to recruit the best people into the Armed Forces.
However, as the Secretary of State said, there are bright spots. There is the opening up of controlled areas, the continued success of covert operations—I hope that more and more men will be trained in such operations—the increasing skills of the UDR and the training and recruiting of the RUC. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited the RUC training school at Enniskillen and was much impressed by it. I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the arming of the RUC. Most of us were in a hopeful mood six months ago, but it is now certain that this struggle will be prolonged. It may be unpleasant to say so, but the terrorists have told us, through the Republican News and other sources, that the latest phase of their campaign is directed at what they call "communications targets and other Government buildings". Their challenge to the authority of Government in Northern Ireland could not be more explicit.
The Secretary of State has pointed out that 49 people have died this year as a result of terrorist activity. While that certainly marks an improvement on the first half of last year, it still remains disappointing. After all, the statistic of the death toll is what matters most, and until that shows a consistently lower trend, our grounds for optimism must be restrained. What we Conservatives would not support is any modification in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In particular, we feel it essential for the security forces to retain the power under this Act to hold suspects for up to three days without preferring charges. This provision, coupled with the powers available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, secures

1719
a vital period for information to be obtained and put together by those involved in intelligence work. We certainly would not support any modification on that score.
Significantly, the terrorists themselves, as the right hon Gentleman knows, have paid tribute to this system. When Seamus Twomey was tried, and the document which had fallen into the hands of the Dublin police was read, it was found to contain statements confirming that the short detention orders which were being applied were breaking the spirit of his accomplices. This is very important. In his own words, this questioning was "contributing to our defeat". Here then, from this source, is a firm endorsement of the emergency legislation which this House is debating today.
It is worth nothing that the Twomey document attributes the erosion of the very fibre of terrorism to firm and unrelenting interrogation, and not to maltreatment. Twomey made no allegation of maltreatment. Mr hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who will be winding up the debate, will be referring to the Amnesty International report. But I should like to say that we would support the Secretary of State in his suggestion that those who make these allegations through anonymous people should refer them to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that Amnesty International will do that. We have all received copies of the letter to which the Secretary of State referred, and that is how I propose to reply. That is our position with regard to the Amnesty International report.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was in Northern Ireland, I discussed with the security forces one or two measures which we felt should be supported, and which I have mentioned before. One is a step which could have been taken earlier in the year, and is one which I suggested during the debate on security last March. Since then, support for this suggestion appears to have been growing steadily. Some members of the security forces, I think not all, regard it as absolutely imperative that we should ban Provisional Sinn Fein. They made this very clear to me. They find it incomprehensible that the Government should concentrate so much effort on crushing the Provisional IRA, as they are
1720
rightly trying to do, while leaving their partners in Provisional Sinn Fein able to walk around scot free.
From any ordinary person's point of view, the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein are two arms of the one body. If anyone in this House is in any doubt about that, let him turn to the Twomey document and read it very carefully. It was quoted extensively in The Times on 13th June. The document said that members of Sinn Fein must be under an IRA organiser at every level. It went on:
"Sinn Fein should be directed to infiltrate other organisations to win support for and sympathy of the movement."
I do not think there could be more convincing evidence that Provisional Sinn Fein is simply the Provisional IRA under another name, differing only in its methods which, as the document shows, are designed to weaken the union and also to conduct subversive activities in favour of the Provisional IRA.
The Government have quite rightly stated time and time again that those who lend their support to terrorism must be regarded as criminals and treated as such. They should, therefore, not tolerate the existence of Provisional Sinn Fein. They permit terrorists and their collaborators to shelter under the wing of a so-called political party. Only by renewing the proscription of Provisional Sinn Fein can the Secretary of State make it unequivocally clear that it is the policy of the Government to deny the terrorists a platform, especially a television platform, on which they can pose unconvincingly as democratic politicians. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to this point. Throughout our visit I came across it when talking to the security forces.
Of course, the great strains imposed on the forces during this crisis have not impaired their courage and dedication. I thought that morale remains extremely high. Wherever one went, one gained a clear impression that the three branches of the security forces were working together in a most successful partnership. There are a number of detailed problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will be referring. For example, in certain areas the UDR is finding it difficult to get experienced recruits, although the RUC seems to have faired rather better in that respect, as

1721
I learned during my visit to the RUC training school at Enniskillen. There we noticed that a number of former British soldiers were joining the police as well as a number of older men with experience of the Armed Forces.
However, the Army is losing too many experienced men from its own ranks, for reasons which may have little to do with the Secretary of State but a lot to do with the Ministry of Defence. For that reason, the increase in the full-time element of the UDR to which the Secretary of State referred and which has been urged for so long from the Opposition Benches assumes an even greater significance. Although the right hon. Gentleman announced considerable improvements, the full-time cadre is still below the enlarged establishment authorised last year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to pursue this.
I now come to the subject of direct rule and the review which we shall conduct in this debate. After four years, we have to look at direct rule, and I come to the need for political progress in Northern Ireland.
Those who attempt in some way to discredit my right hon. Friend's announcement about the need for one or more regional councils do not have much sense of reality and are not being very constructive. This is not 1974 and the year of the power-sharing Executive. Some attacks on what my right hon. Friend said have missed the point totally. The reform of local government is necessary as a start, at any rate, to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. Some of my right hon. Friend's critics do not seem to realise that time has moved on and that a workable arrangement in the area of local government has to be found.
Nor is it really sensible for people to accuse those who promote the idea of a second tier of local government of relying on military solutions. The Opposition have been putting forward a programme for regional administration based on an elected council in which all parties could participate. I mention that because the Secretary of State said that that was his policy.
At the moment, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where regional services are not under the con-
1722
trol of locally elected representatives, and we feel that this position should be restored to bring Northern Ireland into line with the remainder of the Kingdom. We think that directly elected regional councils are necessary to remove from Parliament much business which is of a strictly local nature and to enable councillors to exercise democratic control over area boards and other statutory bodies. We feel that that is a democratic principle. We envisage that they would have a wide range of powers, and I repeat that there will be scope for all political parties.
Here I quote and pray in aid a statement by Mr. Lynch. It is very unusual for me to do that. In his latest speech, Mr. Lynch said:
"The solution must be sought in the direction of giving both sections of the Northern Community the possibility of participating in the decisions which affect their society and daily lives."
I hope therefore that he will recommend the minority to support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in making a start through local government, because this is what could be done, especially since it is being done in the district councils—an area where the Secretary of State is proposing to give greater powers, in any case.
We cannot announce in opposition a very detailed scheme, but in our view the idea offers the best possibilities of progress, for example, in education, to which we shall refer in future debates, where locally elected representatives should have very much more say.
The Opposition are still very disturbed at the lack of interest which the Government seem to be showing in the report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland's representation. They are not even prepared to publish a Bill about this. We should like to know the real reason for their unwillingness. A Bill could be published easily this Session, whatever the future may hold. I hope that some comment on this will be made by Ministers in this debate.
In agreeing to these orders, I congratulate the Secretary of State on much of what he said about the security situation. A very fine job has been done by the security forces. It is still a long haul. But I must record the disquiet of the Opposition at the failure to make any

1723
political progress. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he would have talks along the lines of the assembly which he proposed in the past. I have described it as too ambitious. I think that the talks should be limited to local government regional services. That is the difference between us.
It is not too late for the Secretary of State to make a further attempt to get a political solution. But it is no use aiming too high and running into the power-sharing impasse again, which is what he will do if he is not careful.
I can only express my frustration at the attitude in certain quarters to the efforts which are being made on both sides of the House to try to find a political solution. But, like the Secretary of State, we shall not be deterred by threats to the Union. Plans for the weakening of that Union are quite unacceptable to us, as they are to most members of the Labour Party. As the Secretary of State said, a majority of the people of Northern Ireland believe as we do, and we must continue to uphold their wish to remain citizens of the United Kingdom.

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. Trustee Savings Bank Act 1978

2. Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978

3. Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978

4. Oaths Act 1978

5. Tuvalu Act 1978

6. Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978

7. Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978

8. Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

9. Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act 1978.

10. Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978

11. Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978

12. Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978

1724

13. Union Theological College of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland Act 1978

14. Abingdon Market Place Act 1978

15. Mile End Gardens (Portsmouth) Act 1978

16. Commons Registration (Cardiganshire) Act 1978

17. Christ Church Woburn Square and Saint Matthew Oakley Square Act 1978

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:
1. Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1978

NORTHERN IRELAND (GOVERNMENT)
Question again proposed.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South): I am tempted to suggest one or two other measures which might be included in your next announcement of Royal Assent, Mr. Speaker, but I shall refrain from that and confine myself to offering what I hope will be constructive suggestions and guidelines about how Her Majesty's Government can proceed in what remains of this Session and perhaps in the next Session, especially with regard to legislation for Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) have quite properly dealt at length with security and also with what might be called the psychological warfare aspect of security. It is with that aspect that I wish to concern myself in my opening remarks
It has been recognised that the most effective weapon in the armoury of those who wage war against Northern Ireland is propaganda. It is far more lethal than the bullet and the bomb, to use the words which have been employed by those who seek to destroy the Province and to discredit those who serve it. No group of people have suffered more in this respect than the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and none are more deserving of the sympathy and support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
We who represent Northern Ireland have become resigned to assaults on the

1725
character and integrity of our police force by those who seek to profit from lawlessness and rebellion. But our patience is more than tested by those supposedly responsible individuals and organisations who seem ever ready to jump on the Republican band wagon of abuse of the RUC.
In April of this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) alerted the House to the likelihood of a new campaign of denigration against the RUC. Within weeks, such a campaign was well under way. As hon. Members know, violent Republicans in Northern Ireland have never found themselves short of people in the public eye willing to contrive to take off the heat and to distract public attention from the real cause of unrest in our Province. There is nothing new about this. In collusion with such willing individuals, the IRA was employing this tactic successfully as far back as 1969.
On this occasion it is Amnesty International which has taken up the cause and lent itself shamefully to the Provisional propaganda machine. Do-gooders from whatever quarter, anxious though they may be to help, will be very well advised to leave the affairs of Northern Ireland alone—
Mr. Tom Litterick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sentence that he has just uttered is almost exactly word for word the statement issued by the Chilean Minister for Internal Security with reference to Amnesty International? Will he bear that in mind?
Mr. Molyneaux: I could not identify the little tune that the hon. Gentleman was whistling while the hon. Member for Abingdon was speaking—
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It was the Chilean national anthem.
Mr. Molyneaux: Perhaps it was somehow connected with the theme song for the World Cup. I can assure the hon. Member that we in Europe have quite enough problems—and I mean Europe generally, not just Northern Ireland—to stray into the South American controversies.
1726
At best, I can say of Amnesty International—and this would be most charitable—that it is politically naive to allow itself to be skilfully exploited by those political dishonest in a situation which affects the lives of many innocent people. Those who make themselves available for comment on the activities of the lawful authorities in Northern Ireland would do well to be ever mindful of the lives that have been lost and of those that may be yet lost as a direct consequence of the emotive language which can so easily excite the worst tendencies of the criminally extreme in the Province.
In this regard, it is particularly regrettable that the peace people have been tempted once again to play politics and should prove so willing to encourage popular prejudice. It is hardly responsible, for example, after the shootings of members of a so-called IRA active service unit, to suggest that British troops now seem to be given licence to shoot on sight. Nor was it helpful for some to suggest that the renewal of the temporary provisions order should be opposed in Parliament.
Before I depart from these twin organisations, may I say to the Secretary of State that although I, like the hon. Member for Abingdon, seldom find myself having much in common with the Government of the Irish Republic, it might interest the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to remember that that Government did not permit Amnesty International facilities to investigate far graver allegations in the South of Ireland. Perhaps there is a lesson to be derived from that.
People in Northern Ireland undoubtedly resent attempts to equate action by the Security Forces with violence perpetrated by the IRA, and, anxious though they may be for peace, they certainly have no desire to return to the days of the "softly, softly" policy. Successive Northern Ireland Ministers have told the House that we are at war, and, that being the case, it is absurd for the peace people or anyone else to suggest that we can proceed as though we were engaged in a picnic. I believe that the people of Ulster, who have suffered so much, are prepared to make yet greater sacrifices should that prove necessary in defence of those things they hold to be dear. The Secretary of State can certainly be assured of their support

1727
and of ours for such measures as are necessary to secure the defeat of this insurrection.
The Secretary of State has done much to reassure people in the Province as to the Government's long-term intentions and as to their resolve not to abdicate their responsibilities in the face of violence. It has been said of the Secretary of State that, in contrast to some of his predecessors, he actually behaves as thought he has the right to govern Northern Ireland. That is as it should be. It is for that purpose that he accepted his appointment from the hands of Her Majesty. He governs Northern Ireland on the instructions and with the consent of Parliament, and we certainly welcome the resolution and conviction that he has shown at all times.
There will be criticisms, and the right hon. Gentleman understands our responsibility to make those criticisms that we consider to be necessary and justified. We also have a responsibility to reflect the fears and anxieties of our constituents and of all who live in Northern Ireland. I hope, however, that we shall all continue to be constructive and seek always in this House and outside it to avoid wild accusations which may be very useful for attracting headlines but which severely damage public confidence in the capacity and the will of the security forces.
Constructive criticism can be made with regard to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I take this opportunity to remind the House of the feeling which still exists that the regiment—it is a regiment of the British Army in Northern Ireland—is not being employed to its full potential. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that as the new units are formed, so will the scope and area of their responsibility be increased. That statement is to be welcomed. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments with which hon. Members are well acquainted, but I should like to focus attention on one or two problems which have been less widely canvassed.
The UDR strength remains well below the statutory maximum, and the belief remains widespread that recruitment procedures are unnecessarily sluggish. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister who is to reply that this matter will be kept constantly under review. I should be interested to hear his reply to the suggestions that the training of
1728
members of the regiment is not all that it might be and that the weapons provided in some areas are hardly of a modern and sophisticated type. I do not profess any detailed knowledge of the weaponry best suited to particular situations. Circumstances obviously vary between different parts of the Province. However, these suggestions arise so frequently that I am bound to ask why and to seek clarification from the Government.
Ultimately, the greatest deterrent to would-be terrorists is the knowledge that they will be detected and brought before the courts. Recently we have heard that the conviction or detention rate in criminal cases is causing alarm in certain quarters. Let us assure the Secretary of State that we on this Bench do not share that concern. We welcome the increasing success that is evident in this area of detection and conviction, and we hope that the message is not lost on those who might be tempted to involve themselves in crime and gangsterism.
Some months ago, in a debate on security, I referred in detail to sentencing policy in Northern Ireland. My contention then was that the fanciful theories practised in Great Britain were of no relevance to Northern Ireland. Sentences in the Province were in many cases far too lenient, I pointed out. This week in Great Britain, proposals have been made drastically to reduce maximum prison sentences for a wide variety of offences. Even worse, it has been suggested that the judges might have regard to these extremely preliminary proposals before any decision is arrived at in Parliament. I am most anxious to make it clear that, whatever ultimately may be decided for Great Britain, we would resolutely oppose drastically to reduce maximum prison any such changes in the Province. We shall be very grateful to have reassurances from the right hon. Gentleman on this point, and particularly if he can indicate whether he is of a similar mind.
We have never led people to imagine that there is any magical way of ending terrorism anywhere. The lesson of recent months, weeks and even days has been that no type of civilisation is immune from suffering and damage from relatively small killer gangs. Moreover, the experience of countries which have been most successful in dealing with terrorism teaches us that nothing serves better to

1729
weaken the effort of the security forces than the erosion of public confidence and morale.
We must be prepared to face the worst that can be thrown against us. We perform no service by merely pandering to fear and encouraging people to believe that there is no cause for hope. The forces of subversion know that they cannot succeed in Northern Ireland without first breaking the strength and resolve of the people. In that objective they have failed so far. Whatever others might choose to do, we at least do not propose to help them in their task.
My colleagues and I are not without hope for the future. We take heart from the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State and his colleagues to plan for the future of our Province. The bogy of economic withdrawal has been firmly laid to rest, and it is to be hoped that we are not far from the beginning of a period of growth and prosperity. My colleagues and I do not conform to the view that the conflict in Northern Ireland is of economic origin. Therefore, we do not accept that economic formulae hold the key to its resolution.
As the Secretary of State has said—he speaks from experience together with his colleagues—we represent a hard-working and industrious people who will prove themselves only too anxious to play their part in repairing the damage of recent years and in building for the future. The Government show every willingness to make their contribution to that future. It is to be hoped that all sections of the community in Northern Ireland will make a similar response.
It is hardly surprising that the areas that suffer most from social and economic stress are those that have for too long been under the domination of the IRA, a domination which happily is diminishing. It is in the true interests of, for example, the people of West Belfast, represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who is present today, that the security forces are encouraged and supported in their efforts to eliminate all traces of gangsterism that still remain. However, artificial arrangements, whether they be in West Belfast or elsewere, manifestly are not the answer to the problem. It is
1730
clearly the quality and attitude of mind that we must seek to improve.
There is no indication that any significant body of opinion in the House, other than on the Ulster Unionist Bench, is willing to erect in Northern Ireland the sort of structure that we are proposing to erect in Scotland, where representatives will be elected to run the functions devolved to them. In Scotland there will be no requirement for representatives to agree among themselves or for the institution to enjoy a blessed state of what has been called "general acceptability"—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Forty per cent.
Mr. Molyneaux:—before it is permitted to do the job for which it is created.
Attitudes to Northern Ireland are still very different. A condition of devolution in the Province is a requirement that there shall be combined in the decision-making body, be it Cabinet or Executive, those who wish to belong to this nation and those who wish to belong to another. The idea is preposterous. We know that the majority of people in Northern Ireland will not accept any structure designed to detach them from the rest of the kingdom, but as long as that idea is maintained so long will devolution continue to elude Northern Ireland. The stark fact has now, I think, been recognised.
We are, therefore, in the very position to which I looked ahead in June 1977, when we last renewed direct rule. On that occasion I said:
"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"—
that was 1977—
"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."—[Official Report, 30th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 661.]
We have already wasted six years and Northern Ireland still has a far from effective system. At parliamentary level, no one can pretend that the Order in Council procedure is satisfactory. At the level

1731
of local government, Northern Ireland is the only part not only of the United Kingdom but of the British Isles without a proper structure. Therefore, the sixth annual renewal is the occasion for accepting the facts of life, and on that basis we must now advance.
The methods of making law must be improved. The Government must share out administrative responsibility with those who are prepared to accept it. We should recognise, as the Secretary of State this morning has recognised, that there is an unfairly under-used potential partner within district councils and their officers. In all spheres, there must be in the coming year—and, I hope, in the early part of the year on which we are embarking—a determined drive to restore to Ulstermen and women the benefits and privileges presently enjoyed by their fellow citizens of the realm.
12.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall try to follow the theme expressed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).
I begin my remarks by referring to the Secretary of State's comments about the continuance of direct rule. The right hon. Gentleman is open to the criticism that he is allowing his political room for manoeuvre to set up a form of local government in Northern Ireland to be restricted by the disagreement between the local political parties. If I were uncharitable, I might suggest that he is using it as an excuse for inactivity. I suggest that he would find it difficult to name any other part of the United Kingdom where disagreements between the local political parties have prevented the Government from going ahead with whatever laws they believed were right for those areas.
Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me that the Government had the total agreement of the Scottish National party for their plans for devolution to Scotland, or the total agreement of Plaid Cymru for their plans for devolution to Wales?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. That has nothing to do with the subject matter that we are discussing.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it must have to do with the devolution plans for another part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) is putting questions about the views of the Scottish nationalists on devolution. What has that to do with the matter under discussion?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Having made my point, I ask the Secretary of State why, if the Government did not have the agreement of those two nationalist parties, he demands the absolute agreement of the local political parties in Northern Ireland before he will put forward his plans for some form of devolved Assembly in the Province. If it is because he intends to maintain direct rule as it is for the foreseeable future, is he not guilty of denying Northern Ireland the proper democracy that we might reasonably expect a Province of that size to have within the United Kingdom structure?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that Sir Patrick Macrory suggested in his report that Stormont should be the top tier because Stormont existed and because, as Sir Patrick said, to give a Province about the size of Yorkshire more than one top layer of local government would be to give it, in his opinion, an excessive amount of local government. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman must come clean about the Government's intentions. He must do more than stand at the Dispatch Box every six months to tell us that until he can get agreement among the local parities he can do nothing to break the present impasse in Northern Ireland political circumstances.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do more than make negative statements and, at least in a Green Paper, to share the Government's views with the House of Commons so that all of us may know how he will fill out his concept of a single Assembly with certain powers. I hope that he will then arrange for the House of Commons to have an opportunity to debate the Green Paper.
Surely it is the Government's job to govern as they believe it to be in the best interests of those for whom they have responsibility. When a Government are as willing as this Government have been to introduce devolutionary plans for other

1733
parts of the United Kingdom, it seems remarkable that, at present at least, they have run out of any imiginative proposals for Northern Ireland and are not prepared to share such views as they possess with the House of Commons.
Having touched on the future political institutions for Northern Ireland, perhaps I may turn my remarks to the security situation. As an English Member, it gives me great pleasure to come here six months after six months to hear that the security situation in Northern Ireland is improving year after year. But I wonder when the violence in the Province will reduce to the admittedly high level on this side of the Irish Sea. When that moment will be reached must be anybody's guess.
I also wonder when those who continue to perpetrate what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) described as the continual wave of senseless killings will stop and ask themselves where it is going. What is being achieved by their criminal terrorism? How does the death of Patrick McEntee or of Constable Turbitt add anything to the political future? How does the burning of buses or the destruction of the La Mon House restaurant create a political initiative or encourage any mood of reconciliation?
Do any of those acts make anyone in the North want closer links with the South, or vice versa? Do they help the cause of Irish unity, if in any way that is their purpose? Do they persuade people that they would be safer in Northern Ireland without the presence of the security forces, the police or the Army or without the emergency powers which we are seeking to renew today? I cannot believe that anybody—even the most bigoted of these terrorists—can imagine that any of those objectives is in any way being achieved by what now has become an endless trail of killing, wounding and maiming for the sake of violence, no more, no less.
I should like to pay my own tribute to the security forces, which I had the privilege of seeing last April, and, in particular, to the Ulster Defence Regiment with its full-time and part-time members who turn out so willingly night after night to safeguard their homes, towns, jobs and neighbours.
I had the privilege of going to Portadown to see a battalion at work there. I
1734
was enormously impressed by the enthusiasm and discipline of the officers and men and by their morale and equipment. However, I was sorry to hear that they were still being asked to wait for the radios which they all believe would enormously improve their efficiency. Since they seemed to think that it was possible they would be re-quipped by the end of the year, perhaps the Minister of State in his reply will tell us how progress on re-equipment is going.
I was also impressed to hear that there had been no fatal casualties through terrorism in Portadown since 1976. It seems quite an achievement to be able to turn our 75 to 100 men every night in one town, not to mention the Greenfinches who give of their time, and to hear so few complaints about the job that they are being asked to do. Of course, the rate of pay was one issue that was raised, as was the question of adequate insurance. I found that surprising after the number of years that the UDR has been in existence.
A particularly burning issue which was raised with me by a number of members of the regiment was the £35 training bounty. I was told that it was paid only if they did a seven-day camp. Most of those to whom I spoke felt that that was an unreasonable qualification. They felt that the £35 should be paid, bearing in mind that some people cannot take seven days off to go to camp, particularly when they are giving us as much of their spare time as they are to serve the regiment.
Money aside, the only other pessimistic note that I heard struck concerned the small percentage of Catholics who are now in the regiment. All of us are aware—indeed, it was impressed on me—how much intimidation is placed on members of the minority community who dare to come forward and say that they, too, want to have a hand in protecting their communities. I feel a sense of disappointment that the Ulster Defence Regiment, which was set up to be a community force, has in fact become so much a majority force, if that is the right word, and that the minority are dissuaded from coming forward.
It would appear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) seems to want to make light of this point. Therefore, I ask him to have a little time

1735
and charity for those members of the minority who turn out night after night knowing that their lives are in danger and, more than that, that their homes and their loved ones are also in danger. But, regardless of that, they feel that they want to play their part in making Northern Ireland a safe and peaceful place for all who live there.
Mr. Litterick: I merely ask the hon. Gentleman not to be mealy-mouthed but to use the proper word.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall use such words as I choose. If the hon. gentleman wishes to call them mealy-mouthed or anything else, he is at liberty to do so. Having made that point and the point about intimidation, I have to add that it is a factor which possibly we do not fully understand on this side of the Irish Sea.
I went to Londonderry in the course of my visit in April. I was surprised and shocked to be told by the police that a particular man, whose name they gave me, was living there. They know of his activities. Apparently he is the master knee-capper for the Provos in that great city. The police said that, although they could give me his name and tell me all about him, and although many other people outside could do the same, they could not in any way run him in because no one in the area where he lived had the courage to give evidence against him. People knew that if they gave evidence their fate would be dreadful. I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak will bear that point in mind. I wish that he would not smile. If he knew what knee-capping was, he would know that it was a particularly brutal type of wounding which can make people permanent invalids. If he finds that a laughing matter, his scruples and feelings are curious to say the least.
Mr. Litterick rose—
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall not give way again, because it seems a futile dialogue.
Mr. Litterick rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) is not giving way.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The fact that the police can name that man and know
1736
that he indulges in this type of activity and yet are unable to touch him makes me wonder how effective these emergency powers are. To be told that were David O'Connell to appear in Londonderry the police would not know how to charge him, except to make use of an exclusion order, and that they picked up Martin McGuiness some months ago and held him for seven days but were still unable to charge him, makes the point that these top men in the Provisional IRA are able to escape the justice that is so rightly their due simply because we have not devised within these emergency powers provisions that can catch those godfathers of terrorism.
I make that point because, in renewing these powers, we perhaps imagine that we have created a legislative structure which is adequate to root out the ringleaders of the violence and intimidation that plague Northern Ireland and put the chance of a united community that much further away. Yet by suggesting that perhaps these emergency powers need amending to catch those people I know that there is the danger that we may create a society of restriction and turn Northern Ireland—a part of the United Kingdom—from being part of that open society which is the hallmark of a democracy.
We must continue to respect individual rights. We believe in one man, one vote and in the power of democratically elected majorities. I know that Northern Ireland is not the best example of that. Because of that, I approach with caution the question of any amendment to the emergency powers which might deprive the ordinary citizen of his rights to a greater extent than is already the case.
I accept that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland where violence is at a level which can be described only as unreasonably high and where the threat of violence is ever present. Any further erosion of the usual safeguards of the law is fraught with danger. That is the check on any suggestion that I might make that these powers should be amended. At the same time, I believe that we must consider whether there are amendments that could be made which would catch that special category of people who continue to dominate the violence in Northern Ireland.

1737
I turn to the Amnesty report about allegations of ill treatment. Of course, that report runs the risk of being used as propaganda to undermine the confidence of the community and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon are both right, as is the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, to warn the House of that danger. As they have said, the attempt to undermine the confidence of the community in the RUC has gone on relentlessly since the present level of violence has existed in Northern Ireland. But I wonder whether it is not more dangerous to allow one's fear of the propaganda value of the report to blind one from letting Amnesty produce its report than to tell Amnesty that if it goes there to produce a report it may exacerbate the doubts, uncertainties and feelings of people towards the Royal Ulster Constabulary. On balance, I believe that the Government were right to let Amnesty go to Northern Ireland.
If the Government were right to allow Amnesty to go—they could have refused to let them, as did the Irish Republic, if there was doubt about some of the allegations—I find it surprising that the Secretary of State now seems so anxious to pour as much cold water as he can on the report. It is surprising that he should, in a sense, suggest that because Amnesty chose anonymity in its report it has done something which only helps the enemies of Northern Ireland and nothing to alleviate the situation which may or may not exist.
If one blesses the Amnesty mission, one must accept its report at least in terms of setting up an inquiry. One cannot say to Amnesty "Come and have a look" but, when its report does not say what one hoped it would say, suggest that those who wrote the report were set on creating propaganda.
Mr. Powell: Surely one cannot have an inquiry into the validity of individual alleged cases if anonymity is maintained.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I recognise that. But did the Government discuss with Amnesty how it would set about its investigation? Did the Government ask whether Amnesty planned to treat each case on an anonymous basis? Did the Government set down any criteria within
1738
which Amnesty was to act? How do the Government react to Amnesty's own Press release in which it argues that there were three reasons for anonymity? Those reasons were, first, the confidentiality pledged to the individuals concerned; secondly, that Amnesty International, as a matter of policy, does not seek prosecution; and, thirdly, that the established complaints machinery of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was found to be inadequate.
If the Government let Amnesty go and claimed that it had their blessing, they must take whatever comes and set up an inquiry, as the Secretary of State has done. But, I repeat, did the Government attempt to lay down any guidelines within which Amnesty was to act, or did they say that it could go and that they would be grateful for its report?
Last week I met David Simpson, the director of Amnesty International. I discussed the report with him. David Simpson admits that he is an idealist of an almost unreal order. He recognises that any area which is beset with terrorism will have to use methods which are unusual in an open society or in a democratic State.
Being an idealist of that nature does not blind him entirely from the consequences of the report produced by his organisation. I found it somewhat worrying when he told me that Amnesty International requested a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the report. That meeting was not allowed to take place. He then went to the Government and asked whether he could discuss the report overall. He asked whether the Government had any comments to make. He got the brush-off. Any attempts that Amnesty has made to show that it recognises that the report could be harmful and that it therefore had to be treated with great care in terms of how it was published and how the Government reacted to it did not receive the co-operation that was expected.
I have no doubt that there are reasons for that. I recognise that the Secretary of State must be anxious about the security of the Province and the status of the RUC. I hope, however, that the Minister of State will tell us how much discussion the Government had with Amnesty before it went to Northern

1739
Ireland and why it was thought right not to discuss the report with Amnesty on 2nd May. Why was it thought right to make statements in the House which appeared to suggest that the Government disowned the report?
If we can prove to the people of Northern Ireland that what goes on in the Province will always be a matter of concern to the Government at Westminster, we shall build up a confidence that they can trust the institutions of this Parliament. In the end, it is better to investigate allegations and prove them false or otherwise than not to allow an organisation such as Amnesty to make a report and so leave the doubt in people's minds that there are two laws and two sets of rules by which parts of the kingdom are governed.
12.39 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland are always glad to hear the contributions made in these debates by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I should like briefly to comment on the latter part of his speech before going into the material which was set before the House today by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Government did right to allow Amnesty to come to Northern Ireland. I believe that they did right in allowing Amnesty to make its investigations. But, Amnesty having been given those facilities, I believe that is is only right that Amnesty should now be prepared to put the evidence for the findings which it has made out into the open, so that the general public are not asked to comment on anonymous accusations but can see for themselves the basis on which those findings have been made. It is then up to the people of Northern Ireland to say whether Amnesty was right or wrong in drawing certain conclusions.
I feel that the Secretary of State went sadly astray when he set up the type of inquiry which he has set up. I feel that he should have had a public judicial inquiry to which Amnesty could have been summoned and could have been made to give evidence under oath and to name the doctors, the jurists and the prisoners. Then, under the closest possible examination, scrutiny and cross-examination, the truth could have been found. I
1740
regret that that is not the type of inquiry which has been set up.
I am, however, glad that the Secretary of State suggested today that if Amnesty was prepared now to come forward and declare that it would name the people concerned, they could be brought forward before this private inquiry and the findings of the private inquiry would be made public. That, of course, goes only part of the way. I do not think that it goes all the way. I can well understand the misgivings in people's minds, because we are not having, as it were, the clear light of public scrutiny put on the report and on the inquiry itself.
In the Northern Ireland situation, a lot of evil and vile propaganda has been used from the report. Suggestions are made by politicians and others that have nothing whatsoever to do with the report. In reading the report, I do not find a general indictment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That point is almost forgotten. In fact, Amnesty made it clear that the uniformed members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were to be commended for the way in which they carried out their duties in Northern Ireland.
But I must say, as a public representative in this House, that if there are members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are not acting in keeping with the code of ethics of the RUC, it is better for all of us that this be brought out into the open and that these people be made to face whatever charges may be put against them.
It is not fair to charge people who cannot come forward and clear their names. It is not fair to make a general attack on the whole Royal Ulster Constabulary or upon the detectives who are working in Castlereagh. These are matters that we need to take on board this afternoon.
It is to be regretted that the inquiry was not set up in another way, but we have come half the way. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) says that Amnesty is now prepared to come forward, and the Secretary of State says that so far it has not done so. I trust that as a result of this debate today Amnesty will come forward and will be prepared to give evidence. I am not now talking about the giving of evidence to

1741
the Director of Public Prosecutions, because there are many reasons why people feel that the DPP is not the person who should deal with this matter and that it should be dealt with by the inquiry. I have very little faith, at times, in the decisions of the DPP, because on one occasion when I wanted a mere adjournment, for political reasons his Department would not even grant that adjournment in a case which was afterwards thrown out of court. I do not have very much time for any Department which is prepared to make political decisions.
However, I am glad that the Secretary of State has today given the assurance that, if Amnesty comes from behind the cloak of anonymity and puts forward evidence to him, that evidence can go before the inquiry. That is what I understood him to say. I accept that that is going part of the way, if not all the way.
When the Secretary of State commenced his speech, he put great emphasis upon what the people of Northren Ireland think. From listening to him, it would seem that the final discipline for him would be the people of Northern Ireland. He then gave two examples. He stated that if a majority desired to leave this kingdom and go into a united Ireland, that majority wish would be upheld. But then, when he came to a Government of Northern Ireland, he made it clear that if a majority wanted to govern Northern Ireland, that majority could not govern Northern Ireland because of a Government-buttressed veto given into the hands of a minority who would oppose majority rule.
When one studies and draws logical conclusions from those two statements and propositions, one realises that it is easy to be understood by the Loyalist community that if a majority with anti-Loyalist feelings wanted to sell the Province into a united Ireland, the British Government would fight for the rights of that majority. But when a Loyalist majority want to rule Northern Ireland their wishes will not be taken into account. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Newbury, we do not have democracy in Northern Ireland today.
It seemed to me a very poor case that the Secretary of State was making when he talked of some boards having 30 per cent. elected representatives and some
1742
having even 40 per cent., but none has 51 per cent. elected representatives. This is held forth as an evolution of democracy. In the House the other night, the Secretary of State's colleague, one of the Ministers to be praised for his hard work in Northern Ireland, the Minister responsible for housing, told us that, because the local government authorities would be predominantly Protestant, the Government would not proceed to give any more powers to those local authorities.
This House should consider not the powers that are given to local councils but the constitution of the local councils, their nature and how they are constituted. If the local councils today could have a majority of elected representatives on the boards that make far more far-reaching decisions that the councils when they are in session—I am talking about hospital boards and education boards—we would be stepping forward to democracy in Northern Ireland.
Why cannot the Minister make a very simple proposal and say "All right. In future we shall have a majority of elected representatives from the councils on the boards, and we shall not depend on a majority of nominated members"? Why can we not do that? That is not a very difficult thing. That would at least establish that the elected representatives of the people would have the majority upon the boards.
When the Secretary of State discussed social affairs, he gave a quite glowing report of what he thought were the beneficial effects of direct rule. I do not think that the divorce law legislation which recently went through this House—it is notable that the majority of Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland voted against it—is beneficial to Northern Ireland. I do not think that that should be put on the credit side at all, and I do not think that that was the opinion of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
How are these opinions obtained? How are they canvassed? They are canvassed through the Standing Committee on Human Rights. Who sets up the Standing Committee on Human Rights? How does it reflect the views of the people of Northern Ireland, if at all? One has only to look at the composition of the standing committee to know that the majority

1743
viewpoint is not over-represented, if it is represented at all, on it. I say that as one who has, with many other hon. Members on this Bench, appeared before the standing committee. Its antagonism to our proposals was evident. So the Standing Committee on Human Rights does not reflect both the majority and the minority.
Yet the Secretary of State tells us that the standing committee proposed the divorce legislation. I would rather that the Secretary of State did it off his own bat, with all due respect to him. He knows my opinion of him and my opposition to his views, but I would rather that he did it on his own than that he should go to any picked, faceless people, who will always go against the majority in Northern Ireland and who, as we know from experience, are opposed even to the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. These, apparently, are the people from whom we are to get our opinions and by whom the House must be swayed in legislation which is brought before it.
We know what this standing committee said about homosexuality. We are to get an order on that matter. Fortunately the order has been delayed, and I hope that it will be delayed for ever. The amazing thing about that order is that we shall get a further period of consultation. We have had many such periods. I welcome the delay that there is in bringing forward the order. However, I wonder whether the Secretary of State, when he comes to the House next time to renew this order, will drag up an order on homosexuality and say that that is brought forward for the social benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Even the Secretary of State realises the cynicism with which I am now speaking.
This is an important issue. How does the Secretary of State know what is happening in Northern Ireland? The only way to know what is happening in Northern Ireland is through the ballot box. It would be a good thing for the Secretary of State to tell the House that the Government will bow to the discipline of the ballot box and let the people of Northern Ireland say how they want to be governed.
I understand that, in a new departure, the people of Scotland are to have an opportunity to say what they think about
1744
a proposal made by the House of Commons—namely, the proposal for direct rule. What about submitting an Act dealing with direct rule to the people of Northern Ireland for their opinion? There could even be a 65 per cent. vote on that matter, if the Government wanted, because many members of the minority would express their disapproval of direct rule.
Mr. Powell: There is just one thing which I am sure has not escaped the hon. Member's attention: that is, that if, by whatever mechanism, the 1974 Act were rejected, the 1973 Act—that abominable absurdity of power-sharing, intolerable to any good democrat—would automatically revive. That is an alternative which neither he nor others would wish to place before the people of Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I regard both Acts as twins and I would tie them together. The best thing to do would be to put them together to the ballot box and then to put the Convention report to it as well and see how it comes out. We know how it would come out. However, the Government will not do that.
The hon. Member for Newbury made a vital point when he asked what consultations were undertaken with the people of Scotland or the people of Wales when they were asking for their particular form of devolution. Yet the Minister says that he will keep in mind the wishes of Northern Ireland.
On the question of security, I should not like anyone in the House to get the wrong impression. Unfortunately, there are not many Members here today. If Northern Ireland Members and the Ministers responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland affairs were discounted, the attendance would be very thin. We have empty Benches on Fridays. Northern Ireland business seems to be like the fish that we eat on Fridays—we eat it only on Fridays. That seems to be one of the conditions under which we debate Northern Ireland legislation on a Friday.
The House should wake up to the subject of security, because things in Northern Ireland are not good. When there is a lull there, it is usually before a storm. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) raised a very vital issue about his constituency, an issue which I

1745
wish briefly to underscore. I believe that it was a tragedy when the Special Air Service was removed from Armagh. If the SAS had still been operating in Armagh, those policemen would not have been murdered and, what is more, that Roman Catholic man who spoke out against the IRA and who, I understand, was knee-capped, then hooded and then brutally murdered, would have been alive today.
When the SAS was operating in South Armagh, the IRA never said to people who were opposed to it "Get out within seven days." It was only when the SAS was withdrawn that the IRA was able to make what is a very effective threat indeed. I trust that the Minister will have good news for us today and will tell us that the SAS will be coming back into operations in Armagh and other districts where such men need to operate.
It is only the under-cover operations of the SAS that can deal with the IRA—those murderers who have no regard for life or limb, no regard for any appeal that might be made to them, even from the leaders of the Church in which they profess faith, and who are prepared to carry out the most monstrous atrocities and, indeed, fly in the face of the whole community. We need a return of SAS activity in Northern Ireland, and especially in Armagh.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary will always be under attack from many evil propagandists in Northern Ireland because it is looked upon as the force that executes the power of the Queen's writ in the realm. Those who do not want the Queen's writ to run in the realm will oppose the RUC. Therefore, the House must give to the RUC the equipment, the weaponry and the moral backing to do the difficult task that lies to it.
I wonder what recruitment to the RUC is like. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us about this.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that Roman Catholics were not being recruited to the Ulster Defence Regiment. Can the Minister give us any facts about any increase in the number of Roman Catholic members of the RUC? As the hon. Member for Belfast, West nodded his head today and responded when I said that Amnesty had not attacked the
1746
uniformed members of the RUC but had given them credit for what they were doing, I ask the Minister to appeal to the members of the SDLP who claim to represent the minority community in the political field to come out into the open and advise their members not only to support the RUC but to join it. Perhaps the Minister will take that on board.
The hon. Member for Newbury knows, as we all do, that members of the UDR have been under vicious attack from the Irish Republican Army. Every member of the UDR is potentially an object of IRA attack. I can well understand the feelings of the Roman Catholic community in regard to this matter, but I feel also that there is a legacy here because the UDR has been severely condemned by politicians, especially SDLP politicians, in Northern Ireland. I believe that that has led to the general antagonism and, in particular, the antagonism of certain sections of the people towards those who join the UDR.
Every man who joins the RUC and every man who joins the UDR is at risk. Every Roman Catholic who joins the RUC or joins the UDR is at even greater risk, since not only is he at risk of attack by the IRA but he is at risk of attack from those who would give information to the IRA, and informers work more easily in a district where their viewpoint is in the majority. These men deserve the utmost praise from us all.
I re-echo in the House the appeal which has been made by all sections of the community in Northern Ireland for the return of the body of Constable Turbitt. Those of us who have visited that home have seen the anxiety, the awful distress and the depth of despair of a mother who can only say "We have a wake in this home every night, but we have no body. We meet, and we have sympathy, but there is no day of burial." So the wound remains open for all time until the body is returned. I trust that, somewhere, someone will be able to give the forces of the Crown information for the return of that body. I am sure that I echo the feeling of all in the House in that matter.
I turn now to economic matters. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that no one should talk about economic withdrawal. Yet there are trade unionists, nominally not

1747
Unionist voters but nominally supporters of the Government party, who have constantly said that they can see withdrawal in certain sections of work in Northern Ireland.
I should like the Minister to comment on the recent speech of Mr. Alan Carr in Belfast, when he said that an inquiry should be made into the Belfast shipyard because, he said, the Belfast shipyard has not received one order for its engine works since it was excluded from the overall nationalisation of the shipyards. It used to do over 50 per cent. of the work of the British shipyards, so Mr. Carr asserts, and now it is doing nothing.
The Minister of State is, I believe, most interested in industrial relations and in securing employment. We need a Government statement and comment on that matter, which is of great concern. As we all know, the economy of Northern Ireland is tied up with the prosperity of the shipyard. We are glad that, as a result of recent negotiations, work of other types is being brought to the engine works, but we hope that the Minister can give us his comments.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I have spoken to the trade unionists in Harland and Wolff not once but many times about this. The simple truth is that there are no engines being built anywhere in the world at this moment. Orders throughout the world are very sparse. That is the overall picture. I am battling to get our share, and we are building what engines we can. This is why I was quite pleased when we managed to agree the deal with the MAN engineering company in Germany, which will save about 400 of the jobs in the engine workshops.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. Perhaps, when winding up, he will make a comment also about the Polish order, to which Mr. Carr referred, saying that it was a very large order yet none of it had come to the shipyard in Belfast. These points need to be answered, and we want a comment from the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
The cancer of unemployment is rife in Northern Ireland, and everyone is concerned that employment should come to the Province. But, as has been said,
1748
where terrorism is rife and where the people in those areas give at least tacit support to terrorism, they cannot expect that those who come to set up factories will choose their particular place for the establishment of those factories.
I trust that the Minister will continue to outbid the Republic of Ireland and get the jobs from America and elsewhere. I hope that he will not take too seriously the noises from Dublin on this matter or the threat that Europe will drag him before some imaginary judge to deal with him for flouting certain European laws which we have never heard of or never considered.
My information is that the Republic is doing the same thing. I saw a letter recently from a man interested in setting up a business in Northern Ireland but the Dublin Government were prepared to outbid anything Northern Ireland could do in order to get him. Two can play at the same game. I want the Minister to outbid the Dublin Government every time and get jobs for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Concannon: I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, as he tells me that I ought to outbid the Republic at every point, he should understand that this is public expenditure, and I hope that on occasion, when certain votes and decisions are being taken in the House, he will remember that fact.
Rev. Ian Paisley: There are different ways of spending one's money. If one has £X, there are some things one need not do. One of the things the Minister need not do is destroy the education system of Northern Ireland. Let him keep the money that he intends to throw away on that and put it into jobs. I do not want to labour that now, but there are many other things which the Minister could stop doing so that he could get on with other things. I am not asking for an increase in Government expenditure. I am asking the Government to get their priorities right and to spend their money wisely. That is all. I am asking for good stewardship.
I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must make that political point, but it is rather cheap. However, I appreciate that having to sit here all day on a Friday is something of a purgatory for him, so we forgive and absolve him.

1749
It is essential that the economy of Northern Ireland be made stable. When we read of areas where unemployment is at 30 per cent., we realise how a young person, having finished schooling and then seeing that there is no prospect of a job, becomes a drifter in society. We realise also the consequences of the breadwinner losing his job. Let it not be forgotten that, if he loses his job when he is over 50 years of age, he is hardly likely to be employed again in the present situation in Northern Ireland. All this brings a dark shadow to the Province.
I turn now to constitutional affairs. The Secretary of State spoke of people coming up with significantly different proposals. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is prepared to meet any of the leaders and representatives of the parties in Northern Ireland who will put up significantly different proposals? Is he prepared to discuss them?
I ask that question because, having said that, the right hon. Gentleman then went back to partnership and participation. It all depends on what one means by partnership. There is a sort of partnership in this House between all parties to deal with business of the House. But is the right hon. Gentleman back to the bogy of "If you get 22 per cent. of the vote, you must get 40 per cent. of the seats on the Executive"? If he is back to that, there is no way forward. If, however, he is saying that he is prepared to discuss significantly different proposals, I think that that is an opening of the door. On behalf of my party, I should like to discuss with him significantly—I emphasise "significantly"—different proposals. I should like clarification on that.
I turn to the question of social affairs. Two parts of our society are under attack as a result of foolish Government policies —education and hospitals and their administration. We shall have an opportunity on the question of appropriation to go into these matters, but I ask the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State and his other colleagues, and in particular the one colleague who cannot come to this House, who sits in another place. We can never question the noble Lord. We can never put him through the rigours of a parliamentary debate, though he is
1750
the man responsible for two of the most important portfolios in the Northern Ireland Office, education and health.
I hope that the noble Lord will desist from the road down which he is travelling, a road that is blockaded by the opinion of not only Protestant but Roman Catholic educationists. Will he realise that there is a consensus against the foolish forcing on the people of a comprehensive system of education?
I was never for the 11-plus, but I am certainly not for the present selection procedure. I do not know how many of my parliamentary colleagues have received representations on the matter, but I have had sheaves of letters and I have met scores of my constituents who are irate over the selection procedure.
Children who are one-plus-one-plus-one are supposed to get into a grammar school. Many of them are not doing so. Some one-plus-one-plus-one-minus are supposed to get into a grammar school. They are not doing so. Children who are one-plus-one-plus-two are supposed to get into a grammar school.
Mr. John Carson: No chance.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As my hon. Friend says, they have no chance of getting in. That is not right. The teachers' unions have already made statements about the matter. The secondary schools are also now crying out about the difficulties that are being created for them.
The schoolmaster in a certain area who was able to get only a small percentage of his children through the examination to a grammar school now makes the selection himself, and he says that nearly all his children are grammar school material. If he is in a small community, he is naturally intimate with every member of that community. He goes to the same place of worship. He plays bowls in the same place. He wields the rackets in the same place, and he is in the same clubs. When a parent says to him "You say that my child is not of grammar school material", how will that man answer?
It was different when there was at least an examination set outside the school. It would be different if there were a selection completely divorced from the school, with the reports of the year's work being borne

1751
in mind. Perhaps that would be a suitable way. The present procedure is definitely not right. It is causing serious trouble, and all the schools of Northern Ireland are in a turmoil.
Moreover, there is the important fact that there are committees still to report. Yet the Minister continues with his proposals. I ask him to have another look at the whole education system and to see that a halt is made until the committees report and until there is proper consultation. The consultation broke down because too many people were opposed to the proposals.
I now come to the subject of hospitals. I see in the newspapers today that a contractor from England is to rush into Antrim to try to put up the hospital that is to be built there, as no contractor in Northern Ireland can build it with the speed that is necessary because of the running down of the other hospitals. County Antrim is being badly served because of the Minister's decision on hospitals. I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, South has been protesting vigorously about the situation of the White-abbey Hospital. The same applies to the Massereene Hospital, the Waveney Hospital, the Route Hospital, the Moyle Hospital and the Coleraine Hospital.
With mayors and deputy-mayors from my constituency I met the Minister, who told us that there would be no children's ward in the new Coleraine Hospital. Now I see that he issued a statement through a member of the board that there would be a children's ward there. Then he issued another statement going back on his earlier statement. The Minister meets deputations and says "You will not have a children's ward at the hospital", then a member of the board says "You will have one'", and eventually the Minister says "Yes, you will have it." A matter of children's health should not be decided in that way.
The whole system being operated in the hospitals of County Antrim is a disgrace. There is provision there for limited acute services. Provision is made in the hospitals to look after the people of their districts. Because of the Minister's decision, these hospitals are being run down, and then a frantic effort is made to build a new hospital in Antrim. That is not the way to handle the hospitals in
1752
Northern Ireland. I should link with this matter the Mid-Ulster Hospital, in regard to which there was a lobby over here recently.
We are asked today to renew direct rule. I do not think that direct rule is beneficial. I do not think that it is helping society in Northern Ireland. I do not think that by carrying on with direct rule we shall get anywhere fast. The time has come for this Government to be prepared to submit their proposals to the House and put them to the people, so that the final discipline of the ballot box may be imposed.
1.18 p.m.
Mr. Wm. Ross: A debate such as this gives us a chance to look once more at the Secretary of State's work and to support his actions, as we would all do, in opening up the town centres in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it is possible ever to win a war by hedgehogging. I hope that we shall never return to the hedgehog principle; instead, I hope that we shall keep the men who were engaged on the security barriers free to chase the terrorists rather than stand as targets to be shot at.
The debate also gives us a chance to question the Secretary of State's actions. It is because of this opportunity that I rise to ask a few questions, not on the constitutional or political future of Northern Ireland, or even in terms of a fuller complement of seats in this House for Northern Ireland, but, rather, to ask about the Secretary of State's attitude to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
One aspect of the Northern Ireland terrorist situation that has fascinated me from its beginning is the efforts of those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) described earlier as the do-gooders in our society. Above all, it is the willingness of the do-gooders to believe all the terrorist propaganda that is thrown up, and to forget those who have been deprived of life, limb and property, that I find most astonishing.
I believe that the report of Amnesty International falls into that general category. Amnesty International seems to have believed every word it was told, every propaganda word that was spoken to it. It seems to have believed every

1753
unsubstantiated allegation. If it has not, at least that is the impression given by Press, television and radio to the public.
The RUC has had many inquiries and inquisitions into it over a number of years. First, there was Hunt, then Sir Arthur Young, of—shall I say?—the illest possible fame. The list of inquiries proceeds through Scarman, Compton, Diplock and Gardiner and now Shackleton. Heaven knows how many other minor incidents have happened.
Every one of these inquiries was in one way or another connected with the terrorist situation. Every one has had unsettling effects in the fight against terrorism. Therefore, every one has to some extent helped the terrorists rather than the police force.
A Government's first duty is to protect the State and its citizens from attack, whether that attack is mounted from within or from without. I note that in their reply to the Amnesty International report the Government say that democratic Governments have a grave dilemma. I cannot see that dilemma. There cannot be any dilemma in the objective of government, which is to protect the citizens and their property and the territory of the State from those who would seek to overthrow that State. If a Government find themselves in a dilemma, surely the way to resolve that dilemma is to consider what their primary duty is. When they see that that primary duty is to ensure that the society they represent is protected and propagated, the dilemma should disappear.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I am concerned by the hon. Member's suggestion that anyone who investigates allegations of brutality is somehow helping the terrorists. Is it not the case that he is, on the contrary, helping to sustain the rule of law? Would the hon. Gentleman not say that when the judge in Northern Ireland yesterday threw out a statement allegedly made by Mr. Gerard Murray because he could not accept the prosecution's case as to how Mr. Murray's injuries during interrogation had been sustained, he was actually sustaining the rule of law and was not helping the terrorists by that verdict?
Mr. Ross: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was not present in the House
1754
when the Secretary of State made his opening speech. If he had been he would have heard that point answered. He should read Hansard tomorrow and see what was said.
I believe that there are times, in a terrorist situation, when a Government must take harsh measures. Many harsh measures have been taken in Northern Ireland in the last 10 years, and on every occasion the law-abiding section of the community has been prepared to put up with those measures because it has seen the necessity for them. I believe that if the measures taken by the Government to maintain the rule of law and defeat terrorism are seen to be effective, not only will it have the effect of inhibiting primary terrorism; it will stop any secondary or reactionary terrorism which might result.
The RUC operates within the letter and the spirit of the law, but I believe that the laws passed by this House must be such as will enable the forces of law and order to win and operate successfully against terrorism.
The reply of the Secretary of State to Amnesty International is reasonable in many respects. He goes to great lengths to explain the procedures followed. On the other hand, the Amnesty International report seems to me to be only too anxious to find fault. I wonder whether the Secretary of State found it as strange as I did that the persons complaining were so terribly coy about coming into the light.
After all, this House and the Government have been through all this before—all the attacks mounted on the security forces, whether they be the police, the Army, paratroopers, or the SAS. I believe that the Government have learnt something, because there is a rather spirited defence in some of the paragraphs of the reply of members of the security forces.
Why did the Secretary of State think it necessary to issue this reply? I do not believe that it was necessary. I think that it was necessary only to direct the attention of those complaining of brutality to the fact that they have a right to sue for damages through the courts. If that is so—and a number of people have taken that course—why was the attention of these complainants not directed to this right? Thereby, every single allegation could be investigated, the complainants

1755
could be subjected to cross-examination, as the police would be, and the whole thing would be pulled into the open and examined in the full light of day.
I therefore can see no reason why the Government should have issued a statement of the type they did. I believe that the Government and the House should get rid of the guilt complex that we seem to have through being called to account over the measures that it is necessary to take for the preservation of life and property in Northern Ireland, and that a far more robust attitude should be adopted in the future than has been adopted in the past.
1.25 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: An occasion such as this gives us an opportunity to go over the events and facts of life as they have emerged in Northern Ireland. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I wonder what sort of make-believe world he is living in. His whole speech about Amnesty International was a contradiction of the facts. I propose to take this opportunity to try to clarify for him—if that is possible—what has been happening.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State grouped his speech under four different headings. First, he spoke about the findings of Amnesty International. He seemed to discount them. When he spoke in this House on 15th June, we who were present had to accept what he said. We were in no position to contradict. But I found it strange even on that occasion that he appeared to be treating so lightly such serious allegations from such an eminent source.
It must be remembered that Amnesty International's findings all over the world have been accepted by Governments of both parties in this House and by the majority of responsible public opinion in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is no contradiction to accept the findings of Amnesty International about Iron Curtain countries, South American countries, and European countries. That applies to the Republic of Ireland as well. If there is any reason for me to criticise the actions of the Garda or the security forces in the Republic, the House knows me well enough to know that I would not be intimidated from doing so.
1756
My right hon. Friend said that the allegations were anonymous. Let me tell him that they could not be otherwise. He said that the allegations were made against unnamed police officers. Again it could not be otherwise. It could not be otherwise, because the RUC refuses to divulge the names of police officers charged with ill-treating people detained as suspects.
I know many of those who were detained. They claim that they were ill-treated. They were released. The hon. Member for Londonderry would advise that they could sue the people they charge with ill-treating them, but it is impossible to do so.
When these people sought legal advice about the best method to take action against the detective they claimed had beaten them up, they were asked "What is his name?" They were told that they could not litigate against an unnamed detective. When they sought from the RUC the name of the detective, they were told "We are not allowed to give it." One cannot proceed with litigation of this kind without having a named individual. One cannot claim compensation or take out a court case against the RUC as a force. One must have the name of the officer one is charging with ill-treating or maltreating one.
It is just too easy for my right hon. Friend to stand at the Dispatch Box and quite lightly toss away remarks about unnamed police officers. The facts of life are that those who were ill-treated have tried by every means at their disposal to find out the names of the persons whom they allege ill-treated them.
My right hon. Friend said today that Amnesty International was splitting hairs. I advise anyone who is in the House at the moment to read Hansard of 15th June. It will then be apparent who was splitting hairs. I believe, from what is alleged in the document that I have from Amnesty International, that my right hon. Friend was then, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading this House. I remember sitting here and listening to him. He said that there were only five cases that called for any sort of inquiry. That was the clear and distinct impression that he gave to this House. The letter from Amnesty International absolutely refutes the charge that there were only five cases.

1757
I intend to put on record the view of Amnesty International, and then hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to judge the merits or demerits of each case. I have received a letter, posted to me on 23rd June, whose contents are as follows:
"I am writing to you regarding statements made by Mr. Roy Mason in Parliament on 15 June concerning the recently published AI report of its inquiry into allegations of maltreatment of detained suspects by members of the RUC (reported in The Times on 16 June). A number of comments made by Mr. Mason in answer to questions put before him in the House were misleading with respect to the substance of the complaints of maltreatment contained in Al's report.
AI did not, as was suggested by Mr. Mason, examine in detail only five of the 78 cases in the report.
In the cases of the 26 persons who were not interviewed personally by the AI mission, AI's delegates examined medical reports in several cases of examinations by more than one doctor and affidavits by the complainants themselves. The information on these cases was supplied to Al's delegates directly by lawyers and doctors who had examined the complainants personally in their professional capacities and with whom the delegates were able to discuss the allegations/complaints. Similar corroborative information was obtained from doctors and lawyers in the cases of the 13 persons who were interviewed directly by the mission and on whom medical reports were examined by the mission.
Mr. Mason is therefore incorrect in saying that 26 pieces of medical evidence thereafter were placed before AI, but they had no complaints'.
The remaining 39 complainants whose allegations are described in the report testified personally to the mission but no medical evidence was presented for examination by the delegates. However, in many of these latter cases, as with the above-mentioned cases, police doctors' reports exist but were not made available to the mission; in a number of these cases also the complainants have been examined by their own doctors, and in certain instances the complainants had been transferred to hospital for treatment after interrogation. The mission discussed individual cases with a total of 40 doctors all of whom had examined complainants personally either during or shortly after their detention in police custody.
The five persons who were selected for further examination in greater detail' by the mission's medical experts were selected not because the mission delegates felt that they were the strongest cases but because they were typical of the overall range of cases examined by the mission. They were examined not only for the purpose of further assessment of the veracity of allegations, but also in order to detect whether other corroborative factors were present, such as continued psychological
1758
disturbance or other after-effects of maltreatment.
AI has thus"—
contrary to what my right hon. Friend said—
"based its findings on detailed documentary information regarding 39 cases of alleged maltreatment, and on a further 39 cases from whom the delegates obtained direct testimony only but on whom in many of the cases documentary information regarding the allegations also exists. It should be emphasised that the authorities with whom the mission discussed the allegations of maltreatment were unable as a matter of policy to comment on individual cases, and thus the information obtained by AI regarding the individual cases came only from the representatives of complainants and from the complainants themselves. This is clearly stated in the report."
Finally, AI states:
"As emphasised my Mr. Mason in Parliament on 15th June, the 78 cases contained in AI's report were only a small proprtion of the 3,444 persons questioned by the RUC during the first 11 months of 1977. They were also only a small proportion of the 671 who subsequently lodged complaints for assault during interview against members of the RUC during 1977. Beyond this there are the cases—possibly numerous—in which individuals may have suffered maltreatment but declined to lodge a complaint. It is for this reason that AI has urged that any inquiry into allegations of maltreatment should not be confined to the 78 cases in AI's report, but should be open to examination of all complaints made during the period covered."
That letter is signed by Dick Oosting, the deputy secretary-general of Amnesty International.
I do not want once again to preface my remarks by saying that I do not support the IRA. If that is not accepted by now, it will never be accepted. I detest and despise every action of the Provisional IRA. I regard it as the greatest disaster that has ever happened to the island of Ireland since the famine of 1846. I do not believe that it is motivated by patriotic feelings. I believe that the members of the IRA are a bunch of thugs, criminals and villains, who have no support from any section of the Northern Ireland community.
Let the IRA take no sustenance from the report of Amnesty International and the letter that I have just read to the House. Let the IRA take no pleasure from what is contained in it. I have not read the letter with any intention of helping the IRA in any way or, as some people have said, of taking the heat off it. I have done it for a different reason. I

1759
have done it because I honestly believe that quite a number—in fact, we had nearly 4,000 in 11 months—of young men, middle-aged men, old men, innocent people, guilty of no crime, were taken into interrogation centres in Northern Ireland and maltreated. I completely absolve the uniformed branch of the RUC and make no charge whatsoever against it, but I believe that a number of detectives—perhaps a very small number—are exceeding their duties and bringing the law into disrepute in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday afternoon—this matter has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—Lord Justice McGrath was hearing a case in Belfast in which a young boy had signed a confession admitting an armed offence. The judge had evidence before him from medical experts that this young boy had sustained wounds. Thee were marks on him and facial abrasions. When the boy was asked how he received them, he said that he was sitting on a chair and fell asleep during interrogation, that he took sick and fell on the floor, and that that was how he received these abrasions and contusions. The judge, needless to say, did not accept one scintilla of this evidence. That young boy was released because the judge was absolutely convinced that the confession that the boy had made was under duress of police brutality.
I contend that that judge, by his decision in the courts of Northern Ireland yesterday, was saying to the RUC, in effect, "You are guilty of maltreating this individual to such an extent that he confessed to a crime that he did not commit." I expect that we shall be told by someone from the Government Front Bench that the papers in the case should now be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the DPP will then decide whether to take action against the policemen who were involved in the interrogation of this individual. If the DPP said "There is no case to answer, I do not believe these allegations", it would be tantamount to telling the judge that he is a liar. The DPP would be saying that he did not believe the judge, that he was stupid, or that he was not capable of holding his position.
Here we have a violent contradiction between the forces of law, as evidenced
1760
by the judge's decision. If a judge can give decisions such as that, and there is no reason for giving them, he should be removed, because he is incapable of carrying out his functions. On the other hand, if the DPP continually gives decisions—according to the Amnesty International report there have been 671 complaints—that there is no evidence against the police, he should be removed. If there is someone in Northern Ireland who appears to be acting with a particular bias one way or the other, thereby bringing the law into disrepute, it is indeed a very serious matter.
Mr. Powell: What course does the hon. Gentleman recommend should now be taken following the case yesterday to which he has referred?
Mr. Fitt: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has asked that. I am no legal expert, but I have spoken to persons who claim that they were ill-treated. They went to their solicitors, who sought the names of the persons accused of ill-treating them but were unable to get them. I believe that the Government or the police should make known to the individual acquitted yesterday the name of the detective who interrogated him. The lawyer acting on behalf of that individual could then sue in the courts against the detective.
Mr. Powell: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that at the moment the initiative lies with the legal adviser of the acquitted defendant?
Mr. Fitt: Yes, if he can get the name. But the legal adviser cannot get the name from the police or from the Government. Unless he gets the name of that particular detective, he cannot take any action. The right hon. Gentleman should query this. I have gone into the matter in great detail. The fact is that one cannot sue the RUC; one can sue only the individual involved.
There were 671 complaints. I know that the IRA, or extreme organisations of any description, would probably want to make propaganda out of this. If any of their members are brought in for interrogation, it is logical that they will shout from the high heavens that they have been ill-treated. If that is their game, and I believe that it has happened, it is the Government's duty to

1761
show just how spurious and malicious these allegations are. That is why I would have hoped the Government would accept the recommendations of Amnesty International. I believe that they should have had a full, sworn and open public inquiry, so that the accused could meet his accuser. People in Northern Ireland are no fools. They will be able to make up their minds.
I accept that my right hon. Friend has turned his face against the proposal for a public inquiry and is now to proceed with a private inquiry. I understand the very real dangers involved in a public inquiry. I appreciate that a named detective who appears at a public inquiry may at some future date leave himself open to a murderous attack by the IRA. I accept that. However, there are ways in which these men could be brought to such an inquiry in order to face their accusers. It is still not too late for the Government to take that view.
It is of paramount importance that in Northern Ireland justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. At present, many of my hon. Friends in this House and many friends in Northern Ireland have grave suspicions that the police are acting in a biased way towards named individuals. I know personally of a number of cases where men have been detained for three days, and sometimes up to seven days. By the time they are released, with no charge against them, they go back to their place of employment and find that their jobs are no longer available. They have been detained, interrogated and perhaps ill-treated. Yet when they return to work, they find that their jobs are no longer available.
At the time when this emergency legislation was going through the House I asked that some safeguards should be written into the Act, because emergency regulations are all too readily available to employers whenever they want to get rid of a particular employee. We have had emergency legislation time and time again. I admit that I cannot foresee an early opportunity of taking such legislation off the statute book. Once such legislation is there, it stays there for quite a long time. From 1922 until 1972 we had the experience of the Special Powers
1762
Act. We now have the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I believe that it will be a considerable time before such legislation is taken off the statute book. However, I believe that safeguards could be written into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act just as they have been written into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
Because of the disquiet voiced from hon. Members on the Government Benches, Lord Shackleton is now inquiring into what is happening with regard to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed to set up an inquiry to monitor what has been happening. Why cannot this be done with regard to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act as well? It could be done so that a person could have recourse to someone who could inquire into the operation of the emergency provisions in order to ensure that justice was really being done.
I turn to the Government's position on the Northern Ireland economy. I recognise that against the background of a world economic recession it has not been easy for the Government to do everything which they should have done. With all their ups and downs, I accept that the Government have tried, sometimes against the voices of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, to take remedial steps with regard to Northern Ireland's economic position.
My right hon. Friend has readily agreed, because it cannot be contradicted, that Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment problem and figures not only in the United Kingdom but in any of the regions of the EEC. That is not the whole reason for "the troubles" and the violence, but it can be a very potent factor. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for the specific steps that they have taken.
Sometimes I get a little annoyed about the irony of the situations that develop in Northern Ireland. I am the only Northern Ireland representative in this House who supports the introduction of seat belts.
Mr. Harold McCusker: No, you are not.
Mr. Fitt: It has been opposed by Ulster Unionist Members. I can only go by their votes. The argument is that they are not opposed to seat belts as such, but want them introduced in other parts of the United Kingdom as well. From the outset, I have supported the introduction of seat belts. Yet I find that the factory—General Motors—which will make the seat belts is to be situated in another part of Belfast and that the many unemployed people in my constituency will not benefit from the setting up of at least this industry.
As for cross-border co-operation, I have said before that there is more cross-border economic co-operation taking place than would have ben possible if we had had the Council of Ireland, and allegedly it was the Council of Ireland and the cross-board dialogue that was taking place that brought to an end the power-sharing Exceutive. That is what we were told. But I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the cross-border economic co-operation which is taking place.
I have one slight qualification, concerning EEC benefits and financial assistance from the regional fund. I wonder whether that is additional to British Government finance in Northern Ireland. When the EEC makes a grant, does it mean that the Government give less? I do not think that that question has ever been answered satisfactorily.
Mr. Powell: May I suggest to the hon. Member a means of arriving at a probable answer, namely, to reflect upon the fact that we pay more to the EEC than we receive back again? I think that that will lead the hon. Member to the natural answer to his question.
Mr. Fitt: Certainly my question has once again given the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the opportunity to voice his opinion of the EEC as a whole, even outside the Northern Ireland context.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do all that they possibly can to speed up the provision of housing, given the present parlous situation, especially in the city of Belfast. There are people living there in dire circumstances. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has encountered almost insurmountable
1764
difficulties in trying to acquire land, to stop the problem of squatting, and so on, but the position is so serious now that most certainly he must try to accelerate the rate of progress on the housing front. It has been reported to me that an elected councillor in Belfast last night made a plea to people to stop squatting. I know for a fact that outside his role as a city councillor he is encouraging squatting. It would pay some people to be a little more honest. If they are in favour of squatting, they should say so rather than say publicly that they are opposed to it whilst they give every encouragement to those who are doing it.
I come to the political and constitutional question, on which, I suppose, this whole debate hinges. If there were not a political or constitutional problem, we would not have emergency powers and all the other difficulties which so bedevil daily life in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend said that there had been no movement on the political and constitutional question since we debated these matters last year. I agree with him. But, having agreed, I must ask myself the reason why there has been no movement. I can tell my right hon. Friend what it is.
The Unionist Members in this House—certainly they represent the majority opinion in this House, since there are 10 Unionists of various descriptions to the two Members on the Government Benches —have made it clear that their first option is for a return of the Stormont Parliament as it was prior to its abolition by the then Conservative Government in 1972. How ever, since no major political party in this House sees that as even a remote possibility, they will settle for a highly acceptable second opinion, which is to have more seats for Northern Ireland in this House and a return of powers to local authorities in Northern Ireland. But the end-result is the same, it gives power back to the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland without giving it an instrument such as Stormont. In fact, that is integration.
Given that position, was it ever likely that there would be any movement? If I were a Unionist facing those possibilities and problems, I would not budge an inch —in Common Market terms, a centimeter. I can tell my right hon. Friend that there will be no political movement in the constitutional sense in Northern Ireland so

1765
long as this Government appear to be acceding to the Unionist request for more seats in the Westminster Parliament and a return of certain powers to local authorities in Northern Ireland.
It is unnecessary to remind my right hon. Friend that it was the mismanagement or maladministration of local authorities in Northern Ireland which very largely led to the beginnings and the eruption of the civil rights movement on to the streets. I warn him to be careful about any functions which he is now considering returning to local authorities in Northern Ireland.
The Minister for Commerce in Northern Ireland will know how many of the 26 district councils have refused to sign the Fair Employment Declaration. That is an indication of the mentality which still exists in Northern Ireland. He will also be aware that the Parliamentary Commission has found on repeated occasions that Cookstown council is still engaging in discrimination. There again is an indication of what would happen if powers were given back to local authorities in Northern Ireland.
I come, then, to the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). He told the House of the visit one day last week of his Leader to the beleagured Province of Northern Ireland, and he asked the House to accept that it was a tremendous success. I can tell him, however, that anyone who was there was not of that opinion. I do not think that it was a success. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Prices and Consumer Protection had a much more welcome reception on the following day, and everyone knows the portfolio which he has at the moment.
The Leader of the Conservative Party went to Northern Ireland last week not with the intention of solving any of the problems there and not with the intention of alleviating the distress which exists there, but with the intention of courting Unionist votes, given the possibility that there may be a "hung" Parliament after the next General Election. The right hon. Lady was playing the 1978 version of the Orange card That is exactly what she was seen to be doing in Northern Ireland. It is rare for me to find myself agreeing with the Liberals, but I agree with that party's
1766
spokesman's comment on that occasion. The right hon. Lady's visit was so blatant as to be counter-productive.
I ask the hon. Member for Abingdon why the right hon. Lady did not go to St. Dominic's School, on the Falls Road? As the representative of that area, I received a little courtesy note telling me that she intended to call into Mackie's Foundry on the Springfield Road, and that she would also go into St. Dominic's School on the Falls Road. Why did she change her mind? Was it for security reasons, or was it because the people in the school did not want to see her? This has nothing at all to do with security, of course—the people whom I represent just do not like Tories—what is more, it has nothing to do with the religious complexion of the people who run the school.
I can tell the hon. Member for Abingdon that the right hon. Lady's visit was not the raging success that he asks this House to accept that it was.
The speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) brings us to the position which is a fact of life in Northern Ireland. He referred to the speech that he made in this debate last year, and he quoted from it. He went on to say in terms which I claim are unmistakable that he was happy with the position and that it was leading to integration. That was the full import of his remarks: he is now quite happy to accept the continuation of direct rule, leading to integration. I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that is a very dangerous position for the Government to accept.
Mr. Molyneaux: Surely the hon. Member is a super-integrationalist, because he is saying that he does not want direct rule or integration diluted even by minimal powers being restored to the district councils. He wants everything to happen here at Westminster.
Mr. Fitt: I feel safer with it here than with it in the hands of a Unionist ascendency in Northern Ireland. I do not want that position to continue. I have had experience of what happens under the dictates of a Unionist Government upon the local authorities in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member made a very ill-advised attack upon Amnesty International. We all know the situation in

1767
Northern Ireland, but the hon. Gentleman and those of his ilk take the view that anyone who says anything about a policeman a soldier or a UDR man must be wrong. That is completely the wrong attitude to adopt towards the security forces.
Mr. Litterick: That is the Communist attitude, too.
Mr. Fitt: Yes, it is the attitude that prevails in totalitarian States. Such an attitude—I hope it is not being reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—would lead us into a lot of dangerous trouble in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for commerce in the Province was right to make the interjection he did in the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley.) Having listened to eulogies from the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Abingdon about how well the Government had done in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend was right to ask himself the silent question "Why, then, do they always vote against us on any major issue?". Time and time again when crucial issues have come before the House and when the life of the Government has been hanging in the balance, we have known where to find the Unionists and Tories from Northern Ireland. We have known into which Lobby they would go.
I urge my right hon. Friend and the House not to accept the kind words and eulogies that have been expressed in speeches from the Opposition Benches today. They are genuine, but only in wanting a return to a Unionist ascendency in Northern Ireland. If they do not get that, they are determined to take the Government down the path of total integration.
It has been said that there are all sorts of do-gooders and others who claim to be acting in the interests of Northern Ireland. Sometimes their solutions to the problems would get us into more trouble than we are in at the moment. Whether or not the Unionist Members or Connor Cruise O'Brien believe it, it is right to continue to try to find a Government or political institution for Northern Ireland that commands broad acceptance among
1768
both sections of the community, but not to be driven along the path that has been mapped out by the hon. Member for Abingdon—a path which, if the Government travelled it, would lead only to untold trouble in the Province.
2.3 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The lion. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) castigated the Leader of the Opposition for her visit to Northern Ireland. I cannot see why he should do so. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Lady is a British politician. She is entitled to go anywhere within the United Kingdom.
I am surprise that the hon. Gentleman should tell the House that a school in the Falls Road which the right hon. Lady was to have visited but, for some unknown reason did not, did not wish her to enter its premises because the people there do not like Tories. I dislike some Members of this House, but that does not mean that I would bar them from visiting my constituency or any school in it. I believe that the more that Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), visit the regions of which they know very little, the better. The hon. Gentleman would do well to go round Northern Ireland to see what the people have to endure in the Province.
I can criticise the Tories a great deal, but there is nothing wrong with the Leader of the Opposition trying to canvass votes in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West spends his whole time when he is here trying to canvass support from Labour Members. I know not with what success he meets, though in spite of his protests the Government intend to go ahead with increasing the number of Northern Ireland Members and we now hear that the seat belt factory is to be located in Dundonald rather than in his constituency. He has been courting votes and canvassing support, and he therefore cannot criticise the Leader of the Opposition for doing so.
We are today being asked to approve the continuation of direct rule for a further 12 months. This annual event reminds us of and commemorates the destruction of the Stormont Parliament in 1972. That shameful betrayal of the traditional Ulster Unionists by Conservative

1769
leaders marked the end of 50 years of solemn pledges and rousing declarations of support for the Government, Parliament and people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore natural that I should be suspicious and that the Ulster people should be hesitant about the merits of any pledges that are now given.
The Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), not so long ago advocated that a group of "prominent people" should be set up to advise the Secretary of State and could be consulted by him. I believe that the Conservative Party is not too sure about the right policy for Northern Ireland. Perhaps in its heart it knows what the right policy is, and that that is to re-establish what is destroyed. However, it is not too sure what to put in its place if it does not do what is right by the Ulster people. Does the Conservative Party believe, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Abingdon, that "prominent people" are more to be prized than the democratically elected representatives of the Ulster people? The hon. Gentleman seems to be hankering after the old days when authority was vested in the local aristocracy or magnates. Shining through that suggestion is the Tory Party's belief in elitism, that the so-called upper classes or the new establishment is better fitted to rule than we ordinary people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Neave: The hon. Member seems to misunderstand the position. I spent half my speech recommending a directly elected regional council for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kilfedder: I do not dispute that, but I am referring to the remarks by the hon. Member not so long ago in this House. I disagree with what the Conservative Party says about the top tier of local government. Speaking on behalf of the Ulster people, I say to the Tory Party "Why not try the democracy that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom?" Why do the Conservatives not heed the call of the Ulster people? Why should Ulster not have a democratically elected Stormont, Parliament or Assembly with legislative powers instead of a non-elected band of the new establishment, which now contains safe trade
1770
unionists? They are to be found in Northern Ireland as part of the new establishment, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I suppose that they are to be regarded as those best to advise the Secretary of State.
I say bluntly that we do not want any of the nonsense of an upper tier of local government. When I say "we", I speak of a great many people in Northern Ireland. There is no justification for a yet further tier of regional administration in the Province. There is no justification for a tier of regional administration or council that will neatly sidetrack, and deliberately sidetrack, what should be the dominant issue—namely, to restore a Stormont Parliament or Assembly.
It is part of the armoury of those who skilfully are trying to make direct rule permanent—in other words, total integration. That is why a top tier of local government is being advocated as something that will work wonders for the people of Northern Ireland. Lo and behold, a top tier of local government, or what it really would be—an impotent administrative central council—is being made synonymous with democracy. It is not. It is a trick to try to entice the Ulster people into abandoning what is best for them. It is arrant, blatant nonsense, and I say so on behalf of the Ulster people.
Existing local government can and should be made more democratic. More powers should be granted to it. That does not entail creating more jobs for the boys and an irrelevant sham that would do nothing to help the hard-pressed Ulster people.
Direct rule has done nothing, in my opinion and in the opinion of a great many, for Northern Ireland. There are 60,000 men, women and young persons unemployed. That is the equivalent of 2½ million unemployed in Great Britain. That is a figure that would arouse great anger in this place, but we in Northern Ireland, according to the Secretary of State, should admire him and his four busy, active, hard-working Ministers, as he described them. They are hard-working, in one respect: they are engaged in a publicity machine to project their image in Northern Ireland and across the water to ensure that they have a better chance, or that their chances are improved, for a place on the Labour Party

1771
executive and for higher office in a Labour Administration. Yes, we may have another one after the next General Election. Of course, that is very much in the fate of the gods.
We have endless talk and gimmickry. It comes from the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. We have the Belfast area of need, the youth opportunity programme and job opportunities, yet the number of unemployed continues to rise. That is something that I will not accept. I say so to the Minister. I was not elected to this place to prop up his Administration. I was not elected here to prop up direct rule by congratulating Ministers on the way in which they perform their duties. In fact, they are not performing their duties properly. They may tour around the constituencies, but they are not getting rid of the great number of unemployed in Northern Ireland.
The really substantial advances achieved in Northern Ireland in industrial training, further education and incentives for investment have been inherited from former Stormont Administrations. We may be critical of some of the former Ministers in the Stormont Parliament, but we can point to the achievements of former Stormont Governments. Over the decades Stormont helped Northern Ireland a great deal.
In my opinion, little of lasting substance has been created since direct rule to compare with those achievements of Stormont. What the Government have achieved—it is a remarkable record when we think about it and ponder over it—is the enormous burden of bureaucracy that oppresses Ulster people. At the last count we had 109,000 public servants. The number is still rising. That is an achievement that the Minister responsible for the environment smiles at. It may help employment in providing jobs for some people, but the money that it costs should be used to create far more jobs and more factories and to ensure that there is not too much reliance on the public sector.
What have the Government done in pursuit of care and concern for the Ulster people? I think that those were the words used by the Secretary of State. He said that care and concern are "the hallmarks" of what he and his colleagues are trying to do in Northern Ireland.
1772
What have the Government done? They have, for example, pushed ahead with hospital centralisation in the teeth of local and medical opinion.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has rightly castigated the Government for mishandling comprehensive education. They have made Northern Ireland education a political football. The Government have taken no measures in the Province to reduce the cost of food, coal, gas and electricity to levels of costs enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Instead, they are pushing up the rents of Housing Executive houses. As the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for matters of the environment, but who is no longer present, has accepted, the standard of Housing Executive houses is falling and repairs are not being carried out. The work that is done is not up to the quality that we would expect in our own homes.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman can say that again.
Mr. Kilfedder: I do not believe that any of these measures would have taken the same course if they had been in the hands of Northern Ireland elected representatives sitting in a Parliament or Assembly at Stormont. Such representatives would have a greater understanding of the true needs of the local community in the Province. Policies devised in London may be suitable for the Midlands, for example, but they have shown themselves to be entirely unsuitable for Northern Ireland.
I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North on education. The transfer system that is presently causing so much hardship for pupils and parents in Northern Ireland was lifted from the Inner London Education Authority and planted in Northern Ireland with terrible results. The Government can take no pride in the amount of agony and trouble that they have created as a result of that system being used. The job opportunities scheme was planted in Northern Ireland totally without modification. The job opportunities programme for young persons, which was tailored for large conurbations such as London, Birmingham, Liverpool and similar areas was applied indiscriminately to the totally different physical conditions of Northern Ireland. No opportunity

1773
was given to local people to use the financial resources which were available in a specifically Northern Ireland way.
In Ulster today there is almost complete and total rejection of the concept of direct rule as a practical method of governing the Province. Its implementation shows how far removed Westminster is from the people of Northern Ireland. The Ulster people do not believe that Wesminster is truly part of their lives. It is miles and miles away from them whereas they were used to their Stormont Parliament close at hand in Belfast.
The longer direct rule continues, the greater will be the alienation of the Ulster people and the more difficult it will be to bring the two sections of the community together in a harmonised relationship, which must be the goal of us all. Without the impetus that comes from having political objectives that can be attained, there is bound to be frustration and disappointment in the Province.
A Parliament so far removed from the people and yet making decisions that directly affect the lives and well-being of the people is likely to be considered with hostile eyes, which is the present position. No matter how many representatives Ulster may have in this place, the basic problems of Northern Ireland cannot be tackled except inside Northern Ireland. An ever-present danger is that Ulster people, frustrated at their inability to influence events, will turn totally away from Westminster and give greater consideration to the idea of an independent Ulster.
There is no forum in Northern Ireland for the expression of political views. I challenge what the Secretary of State said about local government representatives. He said that he often consulted them. As I understand it, the elected representatives of the 26 district councils are effectively ignored by the Secretary of State. He does not turn to them for advice on Northern Ireland issues. Nor does he turn for advice to members of the education and health boards. Instead, he is prepared to lend a ready ear to almost any community group which cannot claim to represent anyone but itself.
Despite what the Secretary of State said, it is clear that the Government are anxious to frustrate the development of
1774
real political discussion in the Province. I do not know whether the meetings for which he asked with political representatives or leaders of political parties will come to anything, but I think that his bluff should be called. Those meetings should take place to see whether he and the Government are prepared to try to restore full democracy to Northern Ireland through a Parliament or Assembly at Stormont.
The Government and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office pay lip service to the objective of political settlement in Northern Ireland. But, in reality, they see great dangers in the encouragement of a lively political atmosphere in the Province. Otherwise, I believe that the Secretary of State would have agreed to the suggestion that I put forward to him last year: that at least the Northern Ireland Committee should meet regularly at Stormont. It would then become a focal point. But that suggestion—simple and easy to fulfil—which would provide satisfaction to the Ulster people, has not been accepted by the Government.
Finally, I turn briefly to security. Decent Ulster people—particularly those whose lives have agonisingly been touched by the terrorists—have shown remarkable courage and great forbearance in the face of fiendish and murderous provocation. In no other part of the world—indeed, in no part of Great Britain —would a local community have demonstrated such patience and restraint while being subjected for nine long years to a foul, bloody and sadistic campaign of terrorism. The Ulster people deserve the greatest praise for their restraint.
Amnesty International was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and by other hon. Members. Its report referred to anonymous complaints. This matter has already been dealt with. I shall not go over that ground again. Recently, a courageous policeman and his equally courageous colleague were the objects of an IRA attack in which one of the policemen was shot and killed and the other was shot and kidnapped. But there was no protest from Amnesty when the Provisional IRA declared that it proposed to interrogate the obviously seriously wounded policeman. There was no question of that man having rights to be protected. Yet the IRA constantly makes allegations about police brutality.

1775
Not long ago, a member of the Provisional IRA was shot in the course of planting a bomb. The IRA complained that that man had no weapon or had given up his weapon and surrendered. The IRA never gives its victims an opportunity to surrender in order to preserve their lives. It gives no opportunity to anyone who is captured to be safeguarded from torture or finally from death. Those are the actions of brutal people who have no wish to create harmony or peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. They wish merely to satisfy their own sadistic desires. Despite that, I join in the appeal to those who know where Constable Turbitt's body may be. Its whereabouts should be revealed and he should be returned to his loved ones.
It is scandalous that the terrorists should behave in this way. They are attempting to destroy a Province of the United Kingdom which has had many years of coming together—years in which it was becoming more prosperous and the people happier. I say to the IRA that its time is up. Its members may still kill more people, but its time is up. People of all religions in Northern Ireland have had enough. The IRA should get out and perhaps seek a new life in that country which has always been a sanctuary for its members—the Irish Republic.
2.25 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: The IRA, with gun and bomb, has totally failed to demoralise the people of Northern Ireland or to detach them from their long-held aspirations of allegiance to the Crown and membership of this kingdom, but I sometimes wonder whether Parliament and Government here will do what the IRA has failed to do.
We meet here on a Friday—a day, well known by practice and tradition, which seldom, if ever, represents Parliament in strength—to discuss two very serious matters: the continuation of an undemocratic form of government and a form of law that supersedes the normal traditional British concept of the rule of law. These are two very serious matters, and we have only a handful of Members in the House this afternoon.
In previous years the House talked much about the need to defend the prin-
1776
ciples of democracy, to see that justice was done and that minorities were protected. I see little or no evidence of such a burning desire at this time.
Perhaps it is a good thing that so few Members are present, because the public, now that some of them occasionally, accidentally, listen in to our deliberations, may be rather shattered at the paucity of political thinking on these important matters, and it may do the institutions of Parliament the world of good if that paucity becomes more widely known.
There has not been one encouraging positive line of thought on the future of Northern Ireland or on any speedy restoration to normal peace under the law. I find it astonishing that after 10 years of terrorism and six years of direct rule—undemocratic as it is—we are prepared to gloss over the extent of the failures and to highlight the little successes. I do not feel that it is my duty to take part in glossing over the enormous failure, not only of this Government but of their predecessors, to deal with the difficult situation in Northern Ireland.
Before developing my argument on this line, I should like to digress to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, for reasons of sustenance, is not in his place. It was a typical speech by the hon. Gentleman. He is very good at lecturing everybody else and saying that nobody else will move or learn, but if any hon. Member has learned nothing it is the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a noise coming through the sound system which sounds as if someone is frying chips somewhere, and it is distracting.
Mr. Speaker: I shall listen carefully. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) was accused of singing or whistling earlier, and I did not hear him.
Mr. Craig: I was referring to the principles that the hon. Member for Belfast, West appears to fry. It is ironic for one who used to rejoice in associating with those who carried banners for people's democracy that the hon. Member should today complain that the Government are

1777
about to do something which might improve the standards of democracy, however inadequate that might be. We cannot allow this to go unchallenged. For the hon. Member for Belfast, West to say that Northern Ireland should not have its proper representation in this House because it might offend the aspirations of the minority is hardly consistent with his former stance of championing democracy and fair representation in Parliament.
Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) needs a new legal adviser.
Mr. Craig: The same criticism can be made of the refusal of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to allow the inadequate system of local government to be improved. No one on the Opposition Benches would suggest that this will bring about a dramatic improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland, but it will be a betterment. Let no one be under any illusion about that.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West dealt with these issues as a sideline. He was talking about "AI." I had to listen carefully to his argument. Obviously it concerned Amnesty International, but at times I thought that his argument also concerned artificial insemination. There was a degree of artificiality in many of his arguments.
I shall not pronounce judgment on Amnesty International's report, but on the surface it is suspect. I am glad that the Secretary of State has given Amnesty International an opportunity to clear itself of suspicions which are well founded. Amnesty has presented a report based upon anonymous allegations and somewhat doubtful medical evidence. We are unable to assess that medical evidence, since we do not know its source and quality. Hon. Members would do well to remember that the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland recently had to draw attention to the fact that prisoners would be allowed to call only upon their own medical practitioners rather than upon a selective and exclusive band of medical practitioners who seemed to suit the political cause of the IRA.
I do not suggest that there may not be malpractices by the police on some occasions, but I shall be convinced, until someone can prove otherwise, that if such
1778
practices do occur they are on such a minimal scale that they are understandable in view of the difficult circumstances under which the force operates.
I am filled with disillusion when the hon. Member for Belfast, West jumps on these issues with such vigour. He seems to be too ready to adopt the politics of grievance rather than to sustain a positive and constructive approach to the problems of Northern Ireland.
If terrorism is to be defeated and if law and order are to be re-established, there must be sympathetic and continuout support for the RUC and the forces of law and order. I do not suggest that we should cover up any warts or malpractices, but there must not be this continuous carping, abuse and wild allegations.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that the courts of Northern Ireland can still afford the citizen protection from abuse from any source. I could not follow his argument about the recent case in which the judge rightly refused to accept evidence because it might have been obtained under duress. There is a remedy for that accused person. There is nothing to prevent his taking proceedings and carrying the matter further. The judge did not say, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he said, that the confession was extracted by maltreament. The judge simply said that the circumstances were such that he could not take the evidence.
If the hon. Member for Belfast, West feels that there is substance in this case he could urge the accused to consult his lawyers, to institute the necessary proceedings against the Chief Constable and have the matter aired in the courts.
On the wider issue, the Secretary of State's speech was rather like the proverbial curate's egg; it was sound in parts. I shall be courteous and not describe the other parts. Northern Ireland will rejoice in the Secretary of State's firm declaration that the Province is a part of the United Kingdom and will remain so until the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.
I should have liked that statement to be amplified. I should have liked to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government will pledge themselves to encourage those who want to work for

1779
the maintenance of the Union and that they will strengthen the Union by ensuring at least a stable peace, prosperity, an adequate democracy, and standards that are no lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is not for the people of Northern Ireland alone to maintain the Union; it is something which must be maintained by the citizens of all parts of the Union who believe in it. Those of us in the House who believe in the maintenance of the Union have a special responsibility. But the prime responsibility lies with the Government.
We are somewhat reassured that there will be no further abuse of standards in Northern Ireland, in the sense that no solution will be imposed upon us. I find that to be only partially satisfactory, because the tenor of the Secretary of State's remarks was that we must find a solution. I admit that we have a contribution to make, but the responsibility is that of the Government and Parliament. They have been notably lax in their search for the answer. There is a dilatoriness that did not show itself in their approach to the problems of Scotland and Wales. I feel that they should learn from their approach to Scotland and Wales, including the mistakes that they have made in that approach.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could help the whole of the United Kingdom by suggesting that as we approach devolution we should at least try to find a formula that would suit all parts of the United Kingdom, and that we should do it within the context of a constitution that would strengthen the Union rather than put it at risk.
I say to the Secretary of State quite firmly that it is for him to come forward with proposals for parliamentary devolution or, indeed, for changes in local government. We shall examine them and if we find them worthy of support we shall try to see that they work in a reasonable way.
I must also tell the Secretary of State that he need not bother his head producing proposals for parliamentary devolution if they are on the basis as stated recently in replies to Questions. There can be no parliamentary government in Northern Ireland that is not based on majority rule. The sooner that lesson
1780
is taken on board by all concerned, the better it will be for those who genuinely seek peace and stability.
The corollary to this argument is that if the Government are not prepared to approach devolution in a realistic and sensible way they must accept the inevitable—that they cannot have devolution. The one thing to which we in Northern Ireland cannot be asked to consent indefinitely is the continuation of direct rule. Indeed, if there were to be a Division this afternoon I would vote against direct rule, because I believe that the Government have had more than ample time to move out of this situation.
I do not believe that integration—that rather silly word in this context—is necessarily the best answer for Northern Ireland or, indeed, that it would give Northern Ireland what it wants—longterm stability. But it would be better for Northern Ireland than this system of direct rule. The sooner a choice is made, the sooner there will be real meaning to the possibility of economic advance and sustained growth in Northern Ireland.
Admittedly, the Government are trying hard under the present system. The public purse has been more than generous in those efforts. But as long as the instability of direct rule continues, I do not believe that there will be any meaningful improvement in the social and economic bases in Northern Ireland.
I concur to a very great extent with the Secretary of State on his approach to security. It is a matter for steady progress rather than a dramatic initiative. Certainly after 10 years of blundering and misreading of the situation, it would be more than a miracle if something were to happen which would end the violence overnight. Real and substantial progress is being made, whether or not people want fully to recognise that.
The most impressive aspect of that progress is the growing effectiveness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC is now playing a major front-line role in the policing of our land. I have some doubts whether it yet has adequate manpower, material and equipment. But progress has been made, and it would be wrong for us not to recognise it.
I, for one, would like o place on record my tribute to the Chief Constable, to his officers and to the men who serve under

1781
them. I say that in that particular way because I was one of the number who doubted the wisdom of the appointment of the present Chief Constable. I now acknowledge that he has done a fine job and that he is a good officer. I hope that the force continues to improve under his leadership.
As to the security aspect, while one may draw some consolation from the statistics on casualties, the death toll in particular, one finds that they are not a very good barometer for reading the progress towards the defeat of the IRA. For instance, simple little things, such as the need to lift a body out of South Armagh by helicopter, indicate that that part of the Province is not considered safe enough for the security forces to use more conventional means of moving a body. I support the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) when he says that the lessening of undercover activities is largely responsible for a further deterioration in the situation in County Armagh.
I pay tribute fully to the RUC and to the Army, but there is still a deficiency in their approach. That deficiency concerns the scale of undercover operations. It is not just a question of using the Special Air Service, the men of which are, of course, highly skilled at this sort of thing. Within the organisation of the police, in particular, we need to provide a similar undercover capacity. The gathering of evidence is the vital ingredient in defeating the terrorist when one seeks to defeat him for the criminal that he is, using normal criminal law processes.
I think that the Secretary of State rightfully gave the people of Ulster some encouragement when he spoke of the efforts that are being made to improve our infrastructure and the economic base. However, I draw his attention to the fact that our economic base is all too limited and rests on a very shaky foundation. Some of the things that are claimed as improvements would be hotly disputed by elected bodies if they had an opportunity to express their opinions in Northern Ireland.
Belfast is the heartland of the economy of Northern Ireland. One cannot talk about growing prosperity in Northern Ireland unless Belfast is sound, is in good
1782
health, and is a magnet. I do not believe that it is the magnet that it should be if it is to attract further growth to Northern Ireland.
It is true that road programmes and transport arrangements have been improved, but the whole think looks like a patchwork quilt rather than a coordinated design. We applaud declarations that urban decay will be remedied, but I am not sure that we can applaud the policies that are aimed at doing that.
This is not really the occasion on which to go into constituency matters in great depth. However, in my constituency we do not think that the means of ending urban decay is simply a process of urban development, in the sense that one clears everything and starts afresh. The rehabilitation of much of the city should be getting greater priority, and in my constituency this does not seem to be so.
I hope that ways and means will be speedily found to allow representatives of Northern Ireland to play a more effective role in the taking of these decisions. I doubt whether district councils as now constituted can usefully help in this process. They certainly do not have, as the old councils had, the necessary back-up professional staffs to contribute to the solution of problems such as poor housing and the need for urban renewal.
It is with great reluctance that I see direct rule being continued for another year, but I am not content just to leave it as a matter of reluctance; I propose to concentrate my political effort on bringing a speedy end to it. If I cannot have it ended in the way I should like to have it ended, I am quite prepared to accept the inevitable and have us governed as the rest of the United Kingdom is governed. Given the right initiative from the Government, and accepting the same standards of democracy that prevail here, the Ulster politicians are capable of making democracy work in Northern Ireland, but being treated as we are now, there is very little hope that progress will be made.
It is again with reluctance that we support the continuance of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Of course it is necessary—there is no choice —but I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to undertake a new study into the sort of legislation that is

1783
needed to deal with an emergency caused by terrorist criminals—something far more comprehensive in law than presently exists.
We can tackle that job and perhaps give a lead to the rest of the world that has this problem now developing on its own hearths. We shall certainly not make progress if we sit back and wait on European institutions coming forward with more adequate conventions to deal with the prevention of terrorism. It is our job to have a new look at the best way to deal with this matter.
I do not want to return to hearing this sort of thing for, say, an eleventh or twelfth year. I cannot think of any other people in any part of the world who would have put up with a Government that allowed terrorism to continue for 10 years. Long ago they would have turfed out their Government and everybody associated with them and disowned them, but the people of Northern Ireland have shown a patience that is quite remarkable. I plead with Her Majesty's Government not to abuse that patience but to face the tasks that confront them and come forward with new proposals, and not evade the issue by setting up inter-party conferences in Belfast in the hope that out of the exchange of views at those conferences progress will be made.
Politicians have talked for long enough. We want to see some action. The responsibility for action and for initiating action lies with the Government and with the Government alone.
2.53 p.m.
Mr. Tom Linerick: I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) did not at least go through the motions of showing some modesty or humility in the matter of combating terrorism. He suggested that the State was allowing terrorism to flourish. At least, earlier in the debate one of his colleagues had the humility to say that he had no instant solution.
1 suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody in the world has any instant solution. He cannot wave a wand and say "Go away terrorism." He cannot fly in bombers, heavy armour, napalm and heavy artillery and think that terrorism
1784
will go away. It will not happen. The right hon. Gentleman should have enough sense to know that that has been tried and it did not work. He may recollect that it was done in the Far East when hundreds of thousands of troops and aeroplanes were committed, yet the terrorism—as it was called—would not go away.
Mr. Craig: Do not lecture.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that terrorism in Malaya was in fact stamped out by the security forces?
Mr. Litterick: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect, first, how long that took, and, secondly, how many troops were committed to that operation? Will he also ponder for a few minutes on whether he thinks that the State could today make such a commitment or whether politically it would be viable in Ulster to do that?
This is the sixth request for a renewal of the statute providing for direct rule of Northern Ireland. It is more than that: it is the tenth year of the present war in Northern Ireland. It is not just a renewal of this piece of oppressive legislation but is a continuation of a long history of special and specially oppressive legislation relating to Ireland. As hon. Members know, before this there was the Special Powers Act. Before that, there was another Special Powers Act before 1922. Before that, there was other and similar legislation going back more than three centuries. Ireland has been the subject of special and specially oppressive legislation enacted by British Parliaments—Westminster Parliaments—for as long as that. Before that, Ireland was subject to special oppression, without the need for any legislation, simply by brutal military conquest.
We should remember that we cannot allow ourselves to be swayed too much by our sometimes frantic considerations of present events because, as the House should know, present events are very similar in Ireland to what has gone on before. There is nothing exceptional about them.
It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who, I understand, is Leader of one of the Ulster Unionist parties, reacted so badly to the Amnesty International report. I

1785
think he actually referred to "those who seek to profit from the difficulties and troubles of the Province". In doing so, the hon. Member joined a very large and unsavoury club.
Amnesty International is all too accustomed to the kind of reaction to its investigatory activities manifested by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. As I said in an intervention, the organisation has had the same reaction from the Chilean junta, from the Argentinian Government, from the Uruguayan Government, from the Brazilian Government, from the Greek colonels when they were in power and from the Politburo—from the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. Amnesty International has had the same reaction—"How dare you outsiders interfere in our affairs?" So the Leader of the United Ulster Unionists has joined that tawdry group of political thugs who believe that the mere possession of political power entitles them to do anything to those over whom they exercise political power.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is "political thug" a parliamentary expression?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, it is quite in order.
Mr. Lilterick: It is also, I suggest, part of a familiar attitude on the part of Conservatives to those who actually use coercive power on behalf of the State. I am referring to uniformed policemen and soldiers. It seems that it is difficult for Conservatives to believe that such persons can do wrong in their dealings with the civilian population. It is a kind of mental block from which they suffer.
Frequently the Tories do themselves a great disservice, and, be it said, they do both the police and the uniformed services a great disservice by insisting all too often that they can do no wrong. Those who exercise the power of the State are no less likely to do wrong than are the rest of us, and they should be subject, as the rest of us are, to investigation and to the normal judicial process if they do wrong.
We should be ready to admit to ourselves that those whom we appoint and pay to carry out our unpleasant jobs for
1786
us are from time to time likely to go wrong. Moreover, it should be remembered that the situation in which we put these people in Northern Ireland is one which is likely to corrupt their normal standards anyway. We should take full cognisance of that.
Unlike most hon. Members, I have no particular prescription for the Government of Ireland, because, frankly, I do not think that it is any of my business. I believe that the proper business of the House should be to consider how to divest itself of the problems of Ireland.
Mr. McCusker: And of Scotland?
Mr. Carson: And of Wales?
Mr. Powell: And Birmingham—and Brixton?
Mr. Lilterick: As hon. Members will know, I am not alone in this place in taking that view. Many others who have preceded me here, including Prime Ministers of British Governments, have felt the same way—that the best thing we can do for Ireland is to leave it alone. That process might be a bit difficult, of course, given the sort of parties we have here. One of the most depressing features of the two Front Bench speeches, to my mind, was the wide area of agreement which they seemed to show. I find that depressing.
It seems to me that the reason for that wide measure of agreement probably lies in the fact that the Labour Party has no Irish policy—so far as I am aware, anyway. It is certainly the fact that the Labour Party has not been allowed to discuss Ireland in conference for at least six years, and, if the rumblings offstage which I have heard from the direction of Transport House are anything to go by, our conference will again not be allowed to discuss Irish policy this year.
That means, in effect, that the Government will be drifting. They are drifting from their necessary and vitalising connections with the British Labour movement. They do not know what the British Labour movement thinks of the Irish problem. Indeed, they appear to have gone to some trouble, unfortunately, to prevent any expression of opinion on Ireland coming from the Labour movement.

1787
Nor is the situation helped by the political poverty of the parties involved in Ireland itself. One hon. Member opposite, in effect, said that, and I confess that I agree with him. It is difficult to read any signs of political originality in the parties which represent it here.
As for the IRA, in whatever form it manifests itself, it is easily seen to be an organisation which is abysmally poverty-stricken in political terms. Normally, it is true of a militant nationalist movement that the mere fact of its seeking to establish national autonomy is enough to define the movement, to give it meaning and coherence, but in the Irish situation this is not so. Whatever form it takes, the IRA does not seem to have recognised that, and, so far as I can make out, it has not come up with an original idea during at least the last half-century. If that is the best that the IRA can offer, it seems to me that it is offering the Irish people nothing at all—except bombs and bullets, which, to say the least, is negative.
At the same time, there seems to be little reason for anyone living in Northern Ireland to believe that he is actually a citizen of what one might call Britain, because he is so unequally treated by the British State. Legislation such as that which we are considering now, together with all its rather dismal predecessors, makes each citizen of Northern Ireland an unequal citizen of Britain.
If those who have power here in Westminster are serious—if they seriously mean that every citizen of Northern Ireland is a citizen of Britain—they should seek to change the laws in such a way that that equality is made manifest. They should not, for example, thrust upon us such laws as the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act, which we had to debate last week, an Act which is an absurd imposition on the people of Northern Ireland and, in my view, quite unjustified on the facts of the case.
Such things reinforce the view, which is, I believe, held by many, that the people of Northern Ireland are not treated equally, and this, I suggest, encourages the view that perhaps they would be better off by separating themselves. Whether they mean to separate themselves as an autonomous enclave at the northern end of Ireland or to separate
1788
themselves from Britain in some other way is neither here nor there.
That kind of legislation encourages that kind of thinking, and with reason, because those people are not regarded in law as being the same as every other British citizen, nor even are those people of Northern Irish origin who live on the mainlaind regarded as equal with every other citizen of mainland Britain, because they are subject to arbitrary deportation if the authorities see fit.
Therefore, in a wide range of enactments by this Parliament, we are demontrating over and over again to the people of Ulster that they are not the same as the rest of the people of Britain. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent a great deal of energy last week emphasising that that was his view. At the same time, by our behaviour as a State, we are telling those people "We shall weld the bonds between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland." I think that that phrase was actually used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State within the past fornight. It does not make sense. It is inconsistent. The Labour Government should at least seek to clarify their thinking in a more rigorous way than they have done so far.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), apart from agreeing with my right hon. Friend, made one interesting remark which I should like him to clarify. He said that Northern Ireland industry and commerce would continue to require considerable financial help from the United Kingdom. I think that he meant to add "certainly into the foreseeable future".
I am well aware that the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has recently been going to a great deal of trouble to convince people—whom, I do not know—that if she and her colleagues win political power at the next General Election they will abolish the subsidy system for industry and commerce. So far as I am aware, she did not qualify that statement. I know that she was up north at the time, looking for votes, which is a respectable occupation for the leader of an Opposition party. But, as the hon. Gentleman at least seemed to say that a future Conservative Government would continue to give substantial help to Northern Ireland industry and commerce, the House would be interested to know whether he was

1789
qualifying his leader's more general policy statement in an authoritative way. Naturally, I should like to know the small print.
Mr. Neave: I was quoting from my right hon. Friend's speech.
Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful for that information. Having received it, I have finished my contribution.
3.8 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: It is valuable for us at regular intervals of a year or so to discuss the continuance of the Act.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) sometimes does not do himself justice in our debates. After hearing him devote so much time to condemning the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and then implying that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went to Northern Ireland only in order to cultivate the Unionist vote, I could not help thinking that it must be very difficult to negotiate with people who have that kind of suspicious nature. To the best of my knowledge, my right hon. Friend went to Northern Ireland because she wanted to go to that part of the United Kingdom, and she spent a good deal of her time with the RUC at its training base in Enniskillen because she wanted to be there to show what respect she has for the RUC. I do not believe that there was any other motive.
Mr. Fitt rose—
Mr. Farr: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
As for the hon. Gentleman's complaint about the RUC, he must have forgotten that only about a week ago in the House the Secretary of State pointed out that there was a proper procedure in Northern Ireland for complaints against the police, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. That procedure has been followed in Northern Ireland on far fewer occasions than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Fitt: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that I made no general criticism of the RUC? Indeed, I completely exonerated the uniformed branch. But I said that there appeared to be a few
1790
members of the Special Branch using interrogation methods.
Mr. Farr: What the hon. Gentleman does not realise is that he spends so much time directly criticising or indirecting suggesting criticisms of the RUC and the other forces of law and order, and of the Government, suggesting that they have some ulterior motive, that one tends to expect it from him, and I was pointing out that it must be difficult to create the atmosphere of trust which is essential if progress is to be made.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to the proposals, announced earlier this week, for the reform of criminal penalties. He seemed to be worried that there might be a risk of these changes in sentencing being spread to Northern Ireland. I can tell him that this change in sentencing policy has not yet taken place in the rest of the United Kingdom and that a great many of us will have something to say before some of those ridiculous proposals are put into effect.
I think that most of us agree that direct rule, whether we like it or not, is an effective form of government, but at the same time most, if not all, of us agree that we should continue it in its present form for no longer than is necessary and that as soon as possible an accepted form of what I would call partly devolved government should be acted upon.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who made a most interesting speech, put it in his knowledgeable way that we should either definitely have direct rule or we definitely should not. There is an alternative. Possibly, at a fairly early date while direct rule continues, we could blur its edges and give more local representation to the people and a bigger say in the conduct of their own affairs. I do not believe, in other words, that the choice is either direct rule or not. I believe that a step can be taken at an early date towards changing the situation.
The need for us to move towards a partly devolved form of government for Northern Ireland is much more pressing while Northern Ireland is inadequately represented at Westminster. A Question that I put down the other day highlighted the fact, and the Government are well aware of the situation. Earlier this

1791
year, Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended an increase in the number of Northern Ireland Members from the present 12 to 17. It did so by 22 votes to one.
Why have the Government not acted to implement that recommendation? Do they intend to act on it, or are they going to leave this necessary action to the next Government? It is important that we should know today. It is four and a half months since Mr. Speaker's Conference made its recommendation. It is not quite true to say that the Government have said nothing, because reluctantly, through the Leader of the House every Thursday, almost since the Conference reported, they have had to say something about the prospects of bringing forward a Bill to implement the recommendation so that it could be subject to public discussion before starting its passage through Parliament.
The sort of thing that happens is what happened yesterday, as I believe it has happened every Thursday since 18th February. One of my hon. Friends asked the Leader of the House when he intended to publish the Bill giving increased parliamentary representation to Northern Ireland. You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend did not ask when the Leader of the House intended to proceed with it but simply when it would be published. All that the Leader of the House said, as he has said before, was:
"I do not think that we shall be able to carry through that measure in this Session. but I shall consider further its publication."—[Official Report, 29th June 1978 Vol. 942, c. 1585.]
It does not tell us very much, and I think that when the Minister replies today he should seize this useful opportunity to explain to the House what his intentions are. I think that a great step forward politically would be taken if Northern Ireland had its proper representation in this place at the earliest possible date.
I do not believe a change to a totally devolved form of government, as has been advocated by some of the speakers from Northern Ireland, to be fully desirable or, indeed, possible at this moment, but I suggest to the House and to the Minister that we can surely make progress towards what I would call whittling away the structure of direct rule as we have it. At the moment, as is laid down in Schedule
1792
1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, Northern Ireland is totally governed by direct rule.
But, as I have said, cannot we whittle away at the completeness of this direct rule? Cannot we give more responsibilities to the many very able district councillors and their officers, enabling them to be more involved in decision-making in Northern Ireland? Cannot we, for instance, in some way involve the county councils more? Instead of facing towards a complete change with the abandonment of direct rule, cannot we be working towards the establishment of and elections for one, two or three what I would call area councils, covering the whole of Northern Ireland, and devolve to them some of the decision-making that is contained in Schedule 1?
I believe that direct government is working well, but it is an unacceptable form of government in its present form. However well it may be working, it can be only of a temporary nature. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the improvement in the security situation. I would say that the time is now ripe for a slackening of what I would call the Whitehall grip. It can be done in two ways, as I have explained. The first is by increasing, at a very early date, the the Northern Ireland representation to its proper level at Westminster. The second is by giving to those very able local representatives in Northern Ireland a much bigger say in the government of their country.
3.19 p.m.
Mr. Harold McCusker: If anyone had any doubts over the past few weeks that the emergency legislation that we are renewing today is necessary, the events in my constituency in the past fortnight should have convinced him of its necessity.
I make no apology for referring to South Armagh in the debate. It has already been referred to by the Secretary of State, by the Shadow Secretary of State, and by one or other Members. I do so not only to emphasise the necessity for this legislation but to give a warning of the danger of moving too quickly on the security front, particularly when we think that an improvement is beginning to appear, and that we are thereby free to do other things.

1793
I should like briefly to look back over the past couple of years, because a lesson can be learnt from that period. At the beginning of 1976, confronted with a series of appalling sectarian murders in South Armagh, a leading article in a prominent London newspaper described South Armagh as:
"The flaming torch of Irish Republicanism".
It was suggested that this torch, which had burned brightly for five years, would continue to burn and that unless it could be extinguished there would be no end to the terrorist campaign. A British officer, writing in The Guardian stated:
"The appalling truth is that the British Army have never successfully ambushed an IRA patrol or meeting in South Armagh, or even inflicted a significant number of casualties on those regularly attacking the platoons and company outposts … the IRA hold the initiative".
The IRA itself was keen to foster this thinking. It was saying such things as
"The British admit that they have been losing heavily. The IRA has the support of the overwhelming majority of the local people — in a straight fight in South Armagh between themselves and the Provisionals, the British have consistently been beaten hands down."
Luckily, at the beginning of 1976, the then Prime Minister decided to try to extinguish that flaming torch. By introducing the SAS, he succeeded. The reality is that for a period of two years, from early 1976 to the beginning of this year, there was relative peace in that area. There was certainly an end to the sectarian murders on anything like the scale which we had experienced. In the guise of the SAS, the British Army managed to ambush IRA patrols, although, I admit, not many. It killed the leaders of one or two so-called units. The local population appeared to be freeing itself from the shackles which had been imposed upon it by the Provisionals. Policing was returning to normal.
I was pleased to note that in South Armagh the police stations at Forkhill, Crossmaglen and Newtownhamilton have now been substantially reinforced. An inspector is in charge of each one, and each has two sergeants and a substantial number of police constables, all of them engaged in normal policing activities. But they can perform the normal policing
1794
activities only if an organisation such as the SAS is there to keep the murderers at bay and to give them the opportunity of regaining the confidence of the community and again taking control.
However, by the beginning of this year, one sensed that the tentacles were being pushed out slowly. Initially there were ambushes across the border. Then hijackings took place just inside the border. I am referring to incidents at Forkhill, Jonesborough and Crossmaglen. A soldier, the first in about 18 months, was killed at Crossmaglen. That is not generally appreciated, but it happened in February of this year. IRA road blocks started to appear. This was again confirmed to me personally yesterday when I discussed the matter with the local police in the South Armagh area. I shall be giving more information to senior police officers this weekend.
Then, of course, there was the situation of a fortnight ago when two terrorists were able, with confidence, to lie in wait in a ditch behind a hedge for a period of perhaps four hours or six hours, eat a packed lunch and then brutally kill one policeman and seriously wound another as they were going about normal patrolling duties.
One cannot help but feel that those tentacles, which were being slowly pushed up from the South, were trying to determine whether or not the threat that had existed in the South Armagh area for two years—the threat of the SAS ambushing them—was still there. Having decided that it was not there, and having been told by the Secretary of State and others that the SAS was being deployed in the South Derry area and in Belfast, the IRA decided that it was once again safe to take over its own countryside.
That is why I say to the Secretary of State that when there is a period of relative peace, especially in an area such as South Armagh, that is the time to be cautious and not rush in too soon, otherwise all the good work which has been done can be destroyed. Without that shield, policing cannot go on the scale that we require and we cannot expect young policemen and others to take the risks there to which they are exposed.
The position is deteriorating even further in South Armagh for the ordinary Catholic community there. In less than

1795
10 months, three Roman Catholics have been killed there. They have not been killed by Protestant murder gangs or by the so-called British war machine; they have been killed by the Provisionals themselves. In two instances—in Mr. Martin's case and in the case of Mr. McEntee last weekend—they were killed because they were considered to be informers, and in another instance earlier this month the victim was apparently a renegade IRA man who had been talking. But whatever the reason, in the words of Archbishop O'Fiach himself a few days ago,
"There are people in South Armagh seting themselves up as judges and executioners, and let no one suggest that these crimes have anything to do with patriotism.".
It is a pity that his predecessor did not take a stronger line in preceding years. The tragedy is that some people in South Armagh are now paying the price for others in the community who chose to ride on a tiger's back.
I want to make a plea today. I do not make it as a dramatic plea. I do not even ask for a dramatic intervention. I am not even looking for a headline. I am saying to the Minister "For goodness' sake put the sort of resources which are required back into South Armagh. Put in those people who have been most unobtrusive." The men of the SAS, with the exception of the one incident that was used by the Republic for its own propaganda purposes, have never trodden on anyone's toes in South Armagh except the terrorists'. They have been the most undramatic and yet the most effective weapon against terrorism. I believe that they must be deployed there again in something like the numbers that we require, otherwise public confidence will not be restored.
We were told in the statement on the Defence Estimates in February of this year that there was one squadron of the SAS in Northern Ireland. If that squadron is so scattered throughout the Province that it is operating throughout the Six Counties and in Belfast I do not believe that there are enough men to do an effective job in any one area. If that is so, I hope that some consideration will be given to deploying more of them.
I want now to appeal to a spark of decency which, although it does not exist among the Provisionals, undoubtedly exists in parts of the community in which
1796
the Provisionals operate. I make my appeal deliberately on this basis. Throughout history, no community more than the Irish Catholic community, especially the Republican section of it, has cherished the right to honour and to bury its dead. This House has acknowledged it. In the 1960s, authority was given to return the remains of Roger Casement to be honoured and buried according to that tradition. In the 1960s, we also returned the remains of the murderers of Sir Henry Wilson to be honoured and buried according to that tradition. I say to the IRA and to the community in which its members mix: "Are you prepared to deny your neighbours, even neighbours whom you choose to call your enemies, what you yourselves cherish most?"
They ought to see Mrs. Turbitt and her four children, who just do not know what to do. They do not know whether there are any ends to pick up in order for them to start over again. They do not know which way to turn. Have the members of the IRA and the community in which they live any right to torture those innocent people, perhaps in the way that they tortured that husband and father? I hope that it will not be too long before the body of Constable Turbitt is returned for the Christian burial that he deserves.
In a more general sense, looking across the Province I cannot help feeling that we are back to 1968. Once again, the attack is being generated against the RUC. But after 10 years we have the laws. They are much stronger laws than the old special powers. We have the organisation that is necessary not only to control terrorism but to defeat it. If anyone doubts that that is the case he should read a little more of the document that was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), which was found on the person of Seamus Twomey and which stated such things as
"The three-day and seven-day detention orders are breaking volunteers, and it is the Republican Army's fault for not indoctrinating volunteers with the psychological strength to resist interrogation."
These people did not waste their time making allegations in their paper about brutality by the RUC. They said that the way to deal with the situation was to

1797
train the guilty men not to admit their guilt. The document continued:
"Anti-interrogation Lectures must be given in conjunction with indoctrination Lectures. The ideal outcome should be that no Volunteer should be charged unless caught red-handed."
The whole case presented here showed that particularly over the past year the IRA has been suffering at the hands of the RUC, which has been using laws properly designed to combat terrorism.
The assault upon the police is led by predictable people, Fathers Faul and Murray. One has only to read some of their other publications to appreciate their motivation. I have no doubt, as I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has no doubt, that these men were instrumental in presenting the case to Amnesty International. All sorts of other Provisional sympathisers are also involved. My only regret is that a reputable body such as Amnesty International should have allowed itself to be duped in the way in which it was.
I am not one to praise any Irish Republican Government Minister, but I recall Mr. Patrick Cooney's words when he was answering the demands for an inquiry. He said that we should remember who are the people who are making these allegations—child murderers, gangsters and extortioners.
Mr. Cluskey, the leader of the Irish Labour Party, said that they had imposed on the people of the Irish Republic a sense of national shame by the character and nature of the violence in which they were engaged.
When we were confronted with the request by Amnesty International it might well have been better if we had adopted the attitude taken by the Republic. Who has gained out of this situation? The Republic refused, and took the criticism there and then. We accepted that there should be an inquiry, and thought that we were doing the right thing. We shall now have to live with this report, as we have had to live with so many others, with it hanging round our necks like an albatross for years to come. I suppose that the Chief Constable and the Government had to respond in the way that they did.
I am like many other people in Northern Ireland, except that in my con-
1798
stituency more than 300 people have been murdered over the last 10 years. I suppose that it is a heresy to say it here, but I must ask myself whether it matters very much how one gets the guilty man to admit his guilt. We are not talking here of innocent men signing confessions. Many of the people who made complaints about brutality involved in the signing of certain confessions do not, when they go into Long Kesh, start a campaign to prove their innocence. They are hardly through the gates before they put on the blanket and join their colleagues in the protests. They accept their guilt.
If it were proved to me that innocent people were being coerced into signing confessions I should be a great deal more sympathetic, but when I think of the nature of some of the crimes I cannot help reflecting that it would take tremendous torture upon me to get me to sign a confession that I had murdered six or eight or 10 people, or that I engaged in some of the offences to which these people have admitted guilt. I say that as someone who is reacting emotionally to the situation that I have described, but that is certainly the view held by many people in Northern Ireland.
I conclude by congratulating the Secretary of State on the first attitude of leadership displayed by, perhaps, any political leader in Northern Ireland for 10 years, and that includes some Stormont political leaders. Confronted in Larne last week with the fact that his security forces had killed four people—three terrorists and one innocent person—the right hon. Gentleman, instead of running away, did what any leader should do. In so many words he said "Yes, I accept the consequences of the action of my men". I am sure that that reverberated throughout the security forces in Northern Ireland. I am sure that they will react accordingly in days to come.
As has been said, the people of Northern Ireland are themselves responding generally to the leadership that the Secretary of State has given us during the past two years. It may be that he will give it to us for rather longer than some imagine.
3.36 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: We should not pass over lightly the determination that has been exhibited by the

1799
Secretary of State in support of the security forces. That point was amply ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) in his excellent speech. Nor should we pass over churlishly the contribution to the economy of Northern Ireland that has been made by the efforts and industry of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).
Having said that, I reserve the right in an important debate such as this to make strong but, I hope, constructive criticisms of Her Majesty's Government. In doing so I wish it to be understood that I am not making personal attacks. It is necessary to represent the views and expressions of the people of Northern Ireland in a debate that involves security, the economy and social legislation.
I was disappointed to hear once again the oft-used phrase "acceptance by both sections of the community" when the Secretary of State was trying to convince us that he could not proceed with any constitutional settlement until such a situation obtained. What does he mean by "acceptance of both sections of the community"? What does "section" mean? I put it to the House that the phrase as used is nonsense. It does not mean what successive British Government would like the public to think it means, namely, the religious communities. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman meant, nor is it, I fear, what he will ever mean.
The previous Conservative Government and the present Government are not interested in getting a consensus between Roman Catholics and Protestants; they are interested in getting a consensus between Republicans and Unionists, and that is a political blasphemy in a House that is committed to one-party rule at any given time in the United Kingdom.
I wish that every English politician would take the time and trouble to read a pamphlet written by an eminent member of the judiciary and a former senator in the Northern Ireland Senate, Senator Walmsley. In a concise and cogent document he made an irrefutable case that many Roman Catholics supported the Union. Many Roman Catholics were Unionists.
When Secretaries of State talk about a consensus they wish us to believe that
1800
they are interested in Roman Catholics and Protestants coming to an agreement, but they are talking nonsense, and it will rebound on them. They really mean that they are looking for a consensus between two diametrically opposed political philosophies. They want to involve in government the Republicans who are committed to the cessation of British rule in Northern Ireland and Unionists who are committed to the maintenance of that rule in Northern Ireland.
In defence of that nonsense we hear that we have had one-party government for too long in Northern Ireland. We have had one-party government in various parts of the United Kingdom. In Newcastle, for example, there has been one-party government for 35 years. There has been no change in the Labour control of that area. Why should that be so? Because it is the will of people of that part of the United Kingdom. Secondly, the Labour Party gives unequivocal support to the sovereignty of Her Majesty. Therefore, no one has any gripe about one-party ascendency in that part of the kingdom.
That argument cannot be used in Northern Ireland. The British Government, as was said by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), will not take an initiative unless involved in a consensus government of one kind or another, there are those who exist to destroy Northern Ireland and to bring about its cessation as part of the United Kingdom.
Today we are talking about direct rule. But what does "direct rule" imply? It infers parity systems, parity procedures and parity laws. Northern Ireland has nothing of the kind, particularly when it comes to the future possible method of governing the Province. We have the commitment to the philosophical and political nonsense of Southerners—Republicans—in government with Unionists and members of Great Britain. When will the Secretary of State depart from that utter nonsense and commit himself to a system of government that is in line with that obtaining in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Scotland, as we have been reminded on a number of occasions, will get its Assembly on the basis of a 40 per cent. acceptance. The Scottish people have it both ways. Good luck to them. But in

1801
this respect Northern Ireland has been disadvantaged in every way. If that same criterion were applied to Northern Ireland—40 per cent.—we would have no difficulty in convincing the British Government that we want the British procedures and methods of government. If Scotland rejects the 40 per cent., the majority will will have been honoured and acknowledged. That, conversely, is what we are asking: that the majority will should be honoured and acknowledged.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend should remember that that is 40 per cent. voting. It is not just 40 per cent. voting for, but 40 per cent. voting for and against. I think that point strengthens his argument.
Mr. Bradford: That is absolutely true. It strengthens the point that I am trying to make. The Province has been disadvantaged in every way, even in the face of this wonderful carrot that is being dangled before Scotland at present.
I want to pass on quickly to make some points about industry. This afternoon we heard some very depressing and benighted comments about industry in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are many reasons for being optimistic. There are many bright notes to be sounded for the Province.
We in the Province have not been without some of the most adventurous and specialised entrepreneurs and inventors. For example, we brought into being the defibrillator, which is a miniature heart machine. We prototyped thermal aggregates, which, by law I think, will be compulsorily used in building in future. Many of these things have been prototyped in Northern Ireland. Yet we often inadvertently sell the Province short.
We have the best industrial relations in the whole kingdom. Up to the moment when thuggery, vandalism and terrorism destroyed it, our productivity rate was three times that of any other part of the kingdom.
Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman also include in his list probably the finest agricultural set-up for small farms in the whole of Europe?
Mr. Bradford: I accept that point. I am grateful that it comes from someone
1802
who is totally au fait with agriculture. There is very little agriculture in Belfast, except for a few political goats. I take the point, and I am glad that the hon. Member made it.
However, it is true that we have twice the unemployment rate of the rest of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, since the inception of direct rule we have lost over 20,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. But I believe that the Secretary of State sounded the correct note without any insiduous reason for doing so—and I thank him for his strenuous efforts in that respect—when he said that when West Belfast starts tidying itself up, in terms of terrorism, it can expect people to come in with factories. Who will come in with a factory when there is acquiescence in, if not overt support, for the IRA? There are many reasons why we are in a depressed state, but we shall not be so for ever.
If the Secretary of State continues his effort to bring industry to the Province, I have no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland will continue to contribute and respond in the way in which they have in the past.
I make two criticisms of the Government's handling of the economic situation. First, inadvertently or otherwise, the local enterprise development unit now seems to be a Government agency for those who live west of the Bann. I plead with the Government not to perpetuate that impression. There are entrepreneurs in the Belfast area.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) was right to say that if Belfast is neglected in comparison with all the other areas in the periphery of the Province, that moribund policy will come home to roost. When LEDU is confronted by those in the Belfast area and asked for help, I plead with the Secretary of State to encourage that agency to respond more favourably than it has in the past.
My second criticism involves the role of the Northern Ireland Development Association. I appreciate the difficulties that the association and the Minister have experienced. I hope that the mistakes made before the Secretary of State's incumbency will not cause the Government to be too cautious when new projects are brought to their attention.

1803
I include a bright and realistic note. There is the will, the drive, the expertise and Northern Ireland's history. We want the defeat of the terrorist. We want the defeat of the person who knows that one of the best ways of destroying a State is not only to destroy its Government and security forces but to wreak havoc in the economy of that State. If we cease to endeavour to buy peace, and deal with terrorists as they should be dealt with, the economy of Northern Ireland will look after itself.
I turn to the security issue. I was delighted to hear an hon. Member return to the theme of banning the Provisional Sinn Fein. It is not a bona fide political organisation. It has no policy on housing, agriculture, industry, or any of the normal political issues. The documentation of its policy was found in its offices on the Falls Road. Its policy involves subversion; it is anti-police force; it is for bombing, and the kind of indoctrination to which my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred. It has policies on all the destructive, jaundiced pursuits, but nothing on legitimate politics.
What reason can be advanced for allowing this group to remain unmolested in society? What single reason can be advanced for that kind of acquiescence? If there is concern about reaction, one must remember that we saw on television those who were prepared to walk behind three leading IRA officers when they were being buried. One will get that reaction whatever one does or does not do. There is that in-built stupidity in Northern Ireland. But let us not fail to do our duty by leaving the Provisional Sinn Fein untouched in the Province.
I move on to the sanctions that must he taken against the Republic of Ireland if it continues to aid and abet the terrorists. The fact that it is doing so is beyond doubt and question. No one can gainsay it. It is giving these people succour. It knows that hundreds of them mill around the Monaghan border and the Donegal border, and even the centre of Dublin itself, yet no real action is taken against them. The Republic refuses to sign the conventions on human rights, and so on.
I believe that some Government—I would to God it were our present Gov-
1804
ernment; and I am sorry that more senior Opposition Members are not present today—will have to start talking to Irishmen on this side of the Border. We can take certain sanctions in terms of currency. We can have the guts and courage to deal with that illegal tender which is currency in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, but not here. We can take economic sanctions, and we can impose sanctions concerning the franchise against Irish people who live here.
I do not want any of those things necessarily to happen. But if the southern Government continue, by their ineptness, to assist terrorism, we must do something. We should look, therefore, at the franchise, at the currency and at possible economic sanctions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned the psychological war that is being waged in Northern Ireland. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the situation of the Royal Victoria Hospital. I shall not make that the main subject of my speech this afternoon. I shall do so on another occasion. But I want to make two or three points about it in passing.
First, the security staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital could not see three 12 ft. by 8 It. cash-and-carry lorries being stolen from the hospital, but they could see three soldiers each carrying a 1 ft. square parcel, which they had legitimately bought in the canteen, containing beer and sandwiches, which they intended to eat in their barracks. The security staff sent for the police when three small parcels were being carried through the hospital, but did nothing when the three large cash-and-carry containers were being stolen from the hospital, full of groceries and meat, which were later sold on the Falls Road.
The security staff could take no action at all when gunmen came into the hospital and shot down members of the part-time security forces, but they intercepted one or two nurses coming from a party, beat them up, and sent for the security forces to charge them.
If the ethos created by those kinds of prejudiced instances do not convince us that there is something wrong there, and that a psychological battle is going on there, what will?

1805
The assistant chief security officer tells us "I have got two recommendations for my service". The man who helped the IRA—Devine—escaped from the hospital. This man, who says "I have got two recommendations", got them from people who were not even there. One asks how this could be. How could such documents be signed by members of the administration? I shall say how it could be done. One just speaks to some of the administrators, and they say, " For God's sake, keep your mouth shut, because we have got to come in and go out of here and stay alive".
If the Secretary of State will accept the word of a chief surgeon—the word of one member from three sections of the staff, and act upon that information, those people can be in his office at any time that suits him. Some people say "Why not take it to the courts?" The trouble is that people could be shot dead a day, two days, or three days after a court case. Such is the insidious situation at the hospital that the IRA cannot afford to leave it untouched, and leave witnesses untouched.
On the subject of security, I move finally to the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment. My constituency of Belfast, South is encased by Provo territory. There is the Twinbrook area, in which the Provos are in total control. The Housing Executive can do nothing there unless the Provos let its representatives in. Unfortunately, the security forces are limited in their operation. There is the whole of Andersonstown. There are the markets. Even in the so-called "gin-andtonic" belt there are leading members of the IRA. So my constituency is absolutely encased by Provo territory.
Now and again these people come out of their hidey-holes and go in and destroy businesses. Then they sneak out again and hide away for a little longer. What is required is that the UDR, whose members are in abundance in that area, should be allowed into Twinbrook, Anderstonstown, and so on. Its members are not allowed in. I can prove that they are not allowed in. The policeman who was shot in Lisburn was shot by four men who moved around in a car for one and a half hours, up and down the Ml, off the Ml, and back on to it again. On a number of occasions UDR members were in a
1806
position to apprehend those in that car, but did not do so. They were not allowed to do so. My information on that point comes directly from the RUC. They were not allowed to take action. If the car and its occupants had been apprehended by the UDR, or, indeed, by the police, a Lisburn policeman would still have been alive today.
The UDR must be allowed to go into every area. No decent, respectable Roman Catholic will thank this Government for keeping the UDR out, because the Roman Catholics have suffered from the IRA, perhaps, far more than the Protestant community have, because they have to live with them. They have to pay their subs to them. Pensioners must pay 50p a week to this organisation. So no decent, respectable Roman Catholic in the Province—of whom there are many —will thank this Government or any other for not allowing the UDR or any other regiment to go in and, together with the RUC, properly to police the green Republican areas.
Some weeks ago I was very pleased to hear that the leisure centres in Northern Ireland would not be granted drinking licences. My party has contended for that. We believe that what the Province needs least of all is more opportunities for drinking, particularly amongst young people, and I believe that it would have been a preponderance of young people who would have used leisure centres. We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State, who listened to us on this subject with great sympathy, for accepting the views of the United Ulster Unionist Party on this point.
I regret, however, that the same cannot be said about the proposal to move over to comprehensive education. If there were to be just one reason for rejecting direct rule by a vast number of people in Northern Ireland at present, it perhaps would not be the security situation, much as we are concerned about that; it would not be the economy, much as we are concerned about that; it would be the imposition of comprehensive education.
The tragedy is that there is no reason for the change to comprehensive education. The record of our grammar school system—indeed, the record of our secondary school system—is such as to be the

1807
envy of the rest of the United Kingdom, with, perhaps, the exception of Scotland. As for England, if the rate of O level and A level passes in Northern Ireland were compared with any corresponding area in England and Wales there would be a startling reaction. A few questions would be asked about the way in which we obtain the results. The answer would not be difficult to give. It lies in allowing the nation to produce the best possible system and not having to conform to any Government imposition.
Comprehensive education, whatever its legal merits, means uniformity; it means conformity; and it means the lowest common denominator, because human nature is human nature.
If we allow our education system in Northern Ireland to remain intact, until we get a Parliament back, the people of Northern Ireland, I believe, will be prepared to entertain, reluctantly, even direct rule, but if there is one way of putting a nail in the coffin of direct rule it is to proceed with the imposition of comprehensive education.
4.1 p.m.
Mr. John Carson: Many hon. Members have already dealt in some detail with the principles and issues underlying the continued unrest in Northern Ireland, and I therefore propose to draw attention to some of the details of the security situation. Together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I add my tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to the members of the security forces and the reserve police for the work they have carried out in Northern Ireland over the past several years in conditions of extreme danger and difficulty. Over the years, many of them have made the supreme sacrifice in protecting property, homes and lives.
The Secretary of State spoke of the RUC being supplied with sufficient vehicles. I suppose that, for security reasons, he could not from the Dispatch Box give the number of vehicles, but I recall occasions in the House when there was the reference to the number of proper vehicles which the RUC should have, as well as the number that was being supplied. But, for some reason—I believe that the Secretary of State did not want to give it—the requirements laid down by the Police Authority have not been
1808
met by those responsible for supplying vehicles.
It is high time that something was done. A short time ago the Secretary of State made a statement in which he said that the RUC was now playing a primary role in the security of Northern Ireland, with the Army and the UDR as a backup force, and he spoke of the extent to which the Army was willing to come fully under police direction and the extent to which it was readily available as it should be as a back-up force to the RUC.
Yet we find—I have heard this on more than one occasion—that, while the police are assured of the back-up of the security forces of the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, if they had the proper vehicles in areas around Northern Ireland we could speak today in the knowledge that the number of RUC dead would not be so high. The Government should have pulled their fingers out and pushed the firms supplying the vehicles so that they were more speedily available to the RUC to meet its requirements.
I draw attention also to the work of the UDR. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) asked the Secretary of State about its radio equipment. It is high time the Government realised that in Northern Ireland we are fighting a war against wicked, vicious Provisional IRA men, who will stop at nothing to kill members of the sescurity forces. Even innocent, defenceless civilians have died at their hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has given a typical example of the viciousness of the terrorists in Northern Ireland in telling us of an ex-postmaster who spoke out against them and who was knee-capped, hooded and shot through the head.
I appeal to the Government to introduce the necessary legislation and to make every possible effort to defeat the terrorists. I remind them that they are the Government of the United Kingdom, and they should spare no effort in supplying the necessary vehicles, weapons and radio equipment to the RUC and the UDR. They have met deputations at the House and have said that the supplying firms cannot supply the steel and that there is not enough radio equipment.
It would have been a sad day for this great country if during the war, when it

1809
was involved in a fight for freedom, it had had to tell the enemy "We haven't got the proper weapons. We would like to have the vehicles to fight you. Can you stop fighting until we have the proper equipment?" Every effort was made in those days. Every man put his hand to the plough and every Government official did the job properly to see that the British Army was well equipped. The job was done, and victory was attained only in that way.
I tell both sides of the House that we want to defeat the terrorists in Northern Ireland. We want to see an end to the years of violence, bloodshed and death, with people lying in hospital for years, having been mutilated by the enemies of Ulster. If we are to do that, the Government must face up to their responsibility. They must see that the firms concerned with supplying vehicles and radio equipment to the UDR and RUC do so. They must leave no stone unturned until the UDR and RUC is fully equipped and supplied to fight the enemy that seeks to destroy Ulster and its people, to destroy that part of Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom.
The number of vehicles for the UDR has not been increased, although we have heard from Ministers of an increase in the UDR's full-time personnel. Incidentally, I emphasise that my colleagues and I hope that even members of the minority, the Roman Catholic people, will be encouraged by their political leaders, Church leaders and others throughout the community to play a full role in the security of Northern Ireland in serving the interests of peace, trying to protect life and property and helping in a united body, as members of Her Majesty's forces in bringing violence to an end.
I have it on good authority that vehicles for the UDR are in very short supply and that full-time companies formed in my constituency and around Belfast want to become operational but do not have the necessary vehicles. I felt rather embarrassed the other day when a large procession took place in Belfast. The Army was there with modern equipment but the UDR men were in minibuses. Some even clambered out of a Bedford van. Yet these men are there to carry out security in Northern Ireland.
1810
It is very sad. It is deplorable that men who are prepared, after a hard day's work, to leave the comfort of their homes, and at risk to their families and to their own lives, to protect the security of Northern Ireland—doing so with very small financial reward—should have to use substandard equipment instead of modern equipment such as that used by the British Army.
It is time that the Government stopped inventing excuses, came clean and told us what they intend for the UDR. Many members of the UDR, of the RUC and of the reserve police have made the supreme sacrifice in these last 10 years—too many of them for the rest to he bullied and dealt with in this way.
After so many members of the security forces have laid down their lives for the peace and security of Northern Ireland, the Government should take the necessary steps to equip the police with proper vehicles. Then, the Secretary of State would not have to apologise for being unable to mention such equipment for security reasons but would be able to say that the requirements of the security forces for vehicles had been met and that the right equipment had been supplied to the UDR, so that the security forces had the weapons and equipment that they needed to defeat the Provisional IRA, which is the enemy of Ulster and this country.
In the last debate I drew attention to the security barriers in town and city centres. I have not changed my views. Barriers offer no deterrent to the Provisional IRA and only frustrate law-abiding citizens. I have appealed before to Ministers to take away the barriers in the centre of Belfast, which are serving no purpose. In the country towns where the barriers have been removed—I say this with caution—there has been no difference in the security situation, and the people are able to move more freely. This creates the sense of normality that people are longing for.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the unfairness in the provision of grants for certain types of business but not for others. In the centre of Belfast, the very large employers have the luxury of security barriers manned by members of the security forces and of security staff, at a cost of many millions of

1811
pounds of public money a year. They have the extra luxury of grants for fire-watching, and there is a large grant towards having security people on the doors. Now there is a scheme to give them grants to paint their premises inside and out.
I ask the Secretary of State whether it is fair to give security, finance and a degree of luxury to the large multiple stores in the city centre when small shopkeepers around the outskirts of Belfast and in the suburban areas have no security and no luxuries. It is clear from the legislation that unless they employ 10 or more persons they cannot get a fire-watcher's grant or any grant towards security. The money which is being granted at the present time for a facelift in Northern Ireland does not apply to certain places outside the city centre.
I can give the Minister an example of some of the things that are happening in my constituency. We have an area called Duncairn Gardens. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will, I think, support me in saying that it has had more bombs than any other part of Belfast. Practically every shop in Dun-cairn Gardens has been wiped out. People have died there night after night. People have been mutilated. People have been intimidated to leave their homes. Night after night, the people in that area have to take it in turns to sit in their sitting rooms in case fire bombs are thrown through the window by the intimidation gangs who are trying to force them to leave their homes.
Those people in the Duncairn Gardens area have to pay the same rates, the same salaries to their staff and the same rates for electricity and for gas and have to meet all the same sorts of expenses as those in the Belfast city centre, yet over the past seven years they have had nothing hut bomb after bomb, shooting after shooting and death after death. They have had people injured day after day and people intimidated in their homes, but they do not qualify for any of the luxury grants afforded to those in the centre of Belfast. They have no security gates, no grants towards fire-watchers and no grants towards security people. But they have to face intimidation day after day in trying to survive and make a living.
1812
The Government claim to be the supporters of the small people who try to survive. They are the supporters of the working-class people. It may appeal to the Government that I am speaking on behalf of working-class people, young people who have started a little business and who are trying to survive. Yet the Government seem to be giving all the cream of the cake to the large city centre stores.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to take the first step in trying to bring normality back to the centre of Belfast and in trying to let the people come back into the centre of the town. I hope that he will give some support to the people by having the security gates removed. The grants given to the large stores are sufficient, securitywise. The Provisional IRA has proved time and time again, as the Minister knows very well, that these barriers are no deterrent to it if it wants to go inside, plant its bombs and do the foul deeds which it has done so often over the past number of years.
Housing is a big subject and I shall not elaborate on it today. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that at the Dispatch Box last week the Minister responsible for housing in Northern Ireland, when it was suggested that local government could not be given more power because the Protestants would be in the majority, very quickly replied—I am sorry that it was cut out of Hansard—"Exactly". That is why he will not give power to councils in Northern Ireland.
I think that the Minister responsible for housing should be condemned by the whole House for making such a statement at the Dispatch Box. He has not only made that statement: he has proved it in my constituency. He has tried to put the blame on the Minister of State by saying that he has given 17 acres in the lower Oldpark Road area. I am sure that the Minister of State, who has done everything possible to bring industries to Northern Ireland, and in many ways has been successful, has enough headaches without taking on some of the housing Minister's headaches in order to try to relieve the housing Minister of some of his responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland.
In the Oldpark Road area, the Housing Executive gave an undertaking that

1813
the people in RDA2 would be rehoused. The Government have broken that promise. In a biased effort to divide and break up Protestant communities in Northern Ireland, the Minister in charge of housing has tried to put factories on those 17 acres, whereas houses are badly needed for the working-class people who once lived in that area. Only a stone's throw from that area there are several large factories. There is Edenderry Mill, Ewart's Mill and a large factory in the Flax Street area which could not be let to anyone. It had to be given away as a community centre because no one wanted it. There are large factories throughout the city of Belfast for which tenants cannot be found. If there are no employers, there will be no employees, yet the Minister in charge of housing, in a letter, makes the lame excuse:
"I am sure you will agree that we need industry".
The Minister of State has toured America and other countries in an effort to try to attract industry to Northern Ireland, but he is finding it impossible to reduce the vast number of unemployed. On more than one occasion the hon. Member for Belfast, West has referred to the large number of unemployed in his constituency. There are large numbers of unemployed in my own constituency of Belfast, North. I am sure that my hon. Friends can also say that there are large numbers of unemployed in their constituencies, yet the Minister makes a lame excuse simply to be biased towards Protestant people in the Shankill and Oldpark Roads. In a bid to split up the community, he is trying to attract small industrial units to RDA2.
I have had a meeting with the Oldpark Road action group. I can tell the Government that Roman Catholics as well as Protestants have said that they will not have factories on the 17 acres of RDA2. They want housing. I hope that the Government will take that advice and not use the land as a green field site, or whatever else, which cannot be made use of.
I hope that the Government will take heed of the people of Northern Ireland who have walked the streets, seen people die, watched the operations of the security forces and seen people move out of the district for fear of being intimidated, shot
1814
or mutilated. I hope that the Government will introduce the powers needed by the RUC, the reserve police and the UDR in order to defeat the terrorists. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for housing is not present. I hope that he will get the message that the people of the Shankill and Oldpark districts will not be divided and that those Protestant areas will stay that way. No Minister in this House, irrespective of party, will ever be successful in dividing those districts.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be a pity if, as this debate comes to an end, an acknowledgement were not made—and I do make it—of the admirable survey with which it was introduced by the Secretary of State. Admittedly, he had the advantage over those who introduced similar surveys in previous years, that in more than one direction there was genuine, perceptible progress, which he could record. Nevertheless, it was an introduction which will bear study. It was one which was extremely carefully expressed in order to give a balanced view of the past and the coming year from the point of view both of the emergency provisions and of the constitutional arrangements under which Northern Ireland exists.
It is said that a week is a long time in politics. If a week is a long time, I remind the House that it is six years since the perpetration of that thoughtless act in 1972 which swept away the constitutional arrangements which had existed in Northern Ireland for 50 years and inaugurated the system under which, broadly speaking, we still live today, a form of government unknown to any other part of the United Kingdom, under which no other part of the United Kingdom could imagine itself being governed.
As the years go by, I find no reason to repent having on that occasion voted against that step. But very different are the expectations, and very different is the setting in which today, six years later, we address ourselves to what is judiciously described in the title of the order as the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension). Very different is the background against which we address ourselves to that today from all that we were living with six years ago.

1815
Six years ago, it was anticipated that an entirely new constitutional regime would shortly be introduced and that all things would be made new. Green Papers Papers, White Papers, and pieces of legislation would tumble out one after another in the following 12 or 15 months. It was, indeed, to be in the very narrowest sense of the term an "interim" period. However, as the years have gone by, all concerned have realised that both the return of normality to Northern Ireland in a physical sense and the substitution of more acceptable constitutional arrangements for those which are called "direct rule" would require time and that quality of which, fortunately, Northern Ireland people have never been short—fortunately, for they have needed a great deal of it—namely, patience.
We all use this expression "direct rule", which is more convenient than the expression on the Order Paper; but it is worth while reminding ourselves what are the special characteristics of direct rule. Direct rule does not mean being governed as part of the United Kingdom. Cornwall or Wolverhampton are not under direct rule, in the sense in which we use the term in this debate.
There are two characteristics which distinguish this direct rule from the arrangements in all other parts of the United Kingdom. The first is legislative, and the second is administrative. Northern Ireland can be and often is legislated for by Order in Council, whereas the rest of the United Kingdom is legislated for in the normal way in this House. The second difference is that the Province is destitute of almost every vestige of democratic control over its administration, short of the control which is exercised through this House.
It is these two characteristics which are resented by almost all the people of Northern Ireland when they refer to direct rule somewhat contemptuously as "colonial rule"—the fact that they are neither legislated for nor administered as are their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. This resentment has been—and still is—exacerbated by the fact that their own part of the United Kingdom is grossly under-represented in this House—the sole place where they enjoy representation through directly elected representatives.
1816
We on the Ulster Unionist Bench would be unjustified in giving our acquiescence to the continuance from year to year of these circumstances unless we could discern that there was progress, albeit gradual, towards the removal of these undoubted and essentially intolerable grievances. That we can do here, on 30th June 1978. First, as regards representation in this House, since the similar order was presented last year we now have a commitment binding upon both Front Benches that in the next Session of Parliament, whether it be this Parliament or another, the necessary legislation for giving fair and full representation to Northern Ireland will be put into law. So far as we know—certainly it has the necessary authority—the Boundary Commission is already at work in preparation for that.
To that extent the factor which exacerbated the grievance of direct rule is on its way to removal, and is assured of being removed.
Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in what he says, that there is a commitment by both parties to proceed?
Mr. Powell: Yes.
Mr. Farr: All I have heard being said is that there is a commitment by this Government not to proceed this Session.
Mr. Powell: We have naturally studied very jealously the words which have been used. I am relying upon words which were used by the Prime Minister and which contained the commitment—and I have received from the Government Front Bench the normal form of assent to what I said just now—in the form in which I have repeated it.
We now look to see in what respect the people of Northern Ireland can record at any rate some amelioration of the two essential vices of direct rule. It will be noted that I have not included with those two vices a third, namely, the absence of devolution in the sense in which devolution is being sought to be applied to Scotland and Wales. I do that for a very simple reason. There is a claim of right, arising out of being part of the United Kingdom, to be legislated for in this House and to enjoy democratic control over local administration. That is a claim which is indefeasible, because

1817
it arises out of the very fact of being part of the United Kingdom.
There is also a claim but not a claim of right—to devolution; and should it prove possible without damage to the integrity and structure of the United Kingdom for devolution to be brought into being and made to work in Scotland and Wales, the province of Northern Ireland would have an equal claim to the application of the same principles upon the same basis. But we are concerned, in renewing direct rule, with those matters which are denied to us but are fully enjoyed by the rest of the kingdom. So I address myself to the two matters of legislation and administration.
On legislation, we are further on than we were a year ago. It is true that two years ago the previous Secretary of State said that the Government were glad to "accept … in principle" the suggestion that they
"should more frequently apply Great Britain Bills to Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 2nd July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 811]—
the only method which enables representatives of Northern Ireland to participate on an equal footing with the representatives of other parts of the kingdom.
We have now gone further than that; for we have the commitment from the Secretary of State, and I have quoted it in his words, that the Government will "continue to use" the method of United Kingdom Bill
"whenever it appears to be practicable and desirable".—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1432.]
That means that there is now an onus of proof, in cases where that method is not used, to justify its not being accepted as the method of choice, since no one in this House can deny that legislation by Bill is the proper way to make or to change the law.
Of course we acknowledge—we are bound to acknowledge—that we have not yet reached the point at which Northern Ireland can be legislated for in all respects in common with the rest of the United Kingdom. Over that considerable area in which the law of Northern Ireland still requires to be brought into conformity with that in Great Britain, we must accept that this can in practice be accomplished only by the method of Order in
1818
Council that has been used hitherto. We say however that wherever we are dealing with further advances in the law, wherever the law of Great Britain is being amended or reformed, prima facie the law of Northern Ireland should be brought into that legislation from the outset.
That brings me to a matter discussed on 23rd May in, of all places, the concluding stages of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill, but on which we believe that further progress can be made. In that Bill a new method of bringing Northern Ireland within the scope of United Kingdom legislation was applied, I think for the first time, though it had been adumbrated by the previous Secretary of State and is now in operation in other legislation going through Parliament. I refer to the introduction into a Bill of a clause enabling it to be applied to Northern Ireland by an order made under the 1974 Act—the Act that we are now extending by this order—with the difference, however, that such orders will be subject not to the affirmative but to the negative procedure.
It might seem strange that so apparently contorted a method should be adopted. It is a method to which we take exception on two grounds. First, the safeguard of affirmative procedure in the 1974 Act is clearly important. After all, if part of the United Kingdom is to be legislated for by a mere order, at least we must cling to the safeguard that that order must be affirmed by Parliament. So although we accept that the intention is to use this proposed method only, as it were, to rubber-stamp for Northern Ireland what has passed the House of Commons for Great Britain, nevertheless, the introduction of negative procedure in replacement of affirmative proceduce is objectionable.
Our second objection is that we do not see why it should be necessary to use the 1974 Act interim period procedure even where it is admitted in a particular case that a Statutory Instrument is the most convenient vehicle of detailed application of a United Kingdom statute to Northern Ireland.
Those are the two objections that we see. They were raised in the debate on 23rd May and discussion on them has

1819
continued since then between Ministers and my right hon. and hon. Friends. We should now be able to go further. In replying to the debate on 23rd May the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained that it was necessary, in the case of a Statutory Instrument applying a United Kingdom Bill to Northern Ireland, that
"It must authorise the making of subordinate legislation and must amend existing legislation … It is true that the … Bill could he drafted in such a way as to give an Order in Council made under it all the necessary attributes. But the resulting clauses would greatly lengthen and complicate the Bill."—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1429.]
This difficulty is misconceived. It is common practice to authorise the amendment of existing legislation by a Statutory Instrument made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. I shall not trouble the House with numerous examples, but take one from recent legislation under this Government, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, where section 15(3) provides that Health and Safety Regulations—that is, regulations made under that Act—
"may repeal or modify any of the existing statutory provisions".
So there is no force in the objection that it is either complicated or unprecedented for Statutory Instruments, made by virtue of United Kingdom legislation, to modify, repeal or amend existing statutes; and that must and does include statutes of Northern Ireland.
Another point sometimes made is that it is desirable for the Northern Ireland statute book, as it is called, to be kept intact. It is true that Her Majesty's Stationery Office continues to print those Orders in Council which apply to Northern Ireland in a series uniform with the former statutes of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. But there would be no more difficulty in including Statutory Instruments made under United Kingdom legislation in that series—indeed, I think that they should be so included—than in including Statutory Instruments made under the 1974 Act, as happens now. The Government should consider this matter again.
I believe we have made out our case that it should be possible in all new legislation to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole and to apply that
1820
legislation to Northern Ireland in the normal way either by an application clause in the legislation—that will often by no means be cumbrous—or by a Statutory Instrument made under that legislation itself by virtue of the powers which it confers.
On that basis, and on the basis that the Government have offered to consult Northern Ireland Members whenever it appears that statutes should be applied to Northern Ireland and that a new statute might be applied to Northern Ireland in the form of United Kingdom legislation, I believe we can make progress in removing from Northern Ireland the stigma of being the one part of the United Kingdom legislated for by Order in Council and not by proper Act of Parliament.
I turn to the other vice of "direct rule", the deficiency of democratic control over local administration. The Secretary of State in his introductory speech used words—I hope that I took them down correctly—which I thought were important and deserved more attention than they have hitherto been given in the debate. He said that he would not only take opportunities to introduce democratic control by the existing district authorities into individual Bills as they came up but to consider "whether the right principles were being applied in allocating functions and responsibilities between the district councils and the regional government."
At the moment we are grossly under-using the district councils in Northern Ireland. These bodies function as effectively as the corresponding local authorities in this country. In my constituency there are three district councils. One has a strong Unionist majority, another is almost fifty-fifty and the third has a strong SDLP majority. However, all three behave for all the world exactly as politically divided local authorities would behave in Great Britain. If one wants to see partnership between the two parts of the community in operation, one has only to observe the functioning of the district councils in Northern Ireland. It is happening there. So we are wasting and under-using an important resource both in the political and in the administrative sense. I mention that second aspect, because it is intolerably clumsy for almost the entire administration of Northern Ireland

1821
to be conducted upon the sole democratic responsibility of the Government to this House.
The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his openness of mind in saying that he really thinks that the time has come for asking whether the boundary between what the district councils do and, on the other hand, what he and his Ministers do is drawn in the right place: and I wish to make a few suggestions to the Secretary of State about directions in which he might look in the course of his consideration. I do not expect the Minister, when he replies, to give an off-the-cuff reaction. After all, I can hardly expect the Secretary of State at the start of a study to give us at the same time his conclusions. I simply want to feed in some material for his consideration.
I do this in complete accord with the policy of the Ulster Unionist Party, which, when it put forward as an urgent requirement the restoration of local government to the Province at a higher level—at what is called the upper tier—expressly said that it believed that many management aspects of those functions should be delegated to the district councils. Just so, I am asking the Secretary of State to accept that there are many functions which could with advantage be, and should be, delegated to the district councils. I see that I have the approval of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Indeed, in this respect I find myself rather nearer to his point of view than to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). The right hon. Member for Belfast, East and others said—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, (Mr. Molyneaux) also said something to the same effect—that we must make up our minds once and for all whether it is to be devolution or whether it is to be integration.
I believe that that is much too sudden, much too definite, much too little evolutionary a way to approach this question. Personally I believe that the process of "chipping away," as the hon. Member for Harborough called it, at the iniquities of direct rule is likely in the end to result in a greater consensus and in a more satisfactory and stable outcome. So I make my suggestions, as briefly as
1822
possible, to the Secretary of State for material which he might feed into his consideration of the right principles to apply in deciding what district councils can do.
First, I refer to environmental matters such as local roads—I am not talking about trunk roads or motorways—and local drainage. I say, not for the first time in the House, that it is total insanity that the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, in order to have the drainage or paving of a road outside their houses dealt with, should have no other democratic recourse than to a Member of Parliament acting through an Under-Secretary of State in Whitehall. I should have thought that the experience of the four hon. Members of the team to which the Secretary of State referred is such that they would, in their hearts, heartily approve what I have just said. So there are two areas for delegation. There is already, on the ground in the various districts, the staff to do the job—the very same people who have been doing the job year in and year out. What can possibly be wrong with a district council deciding, within a total allocation of money, whether road A or road B ought to have priority for repair and improvement, or whether the drainage in road C ought not to be improved before that in road D?
I am not complaining, because it is our duty while the present system lasts, but it is monstrous that, week by week, Members of Parliament should have to verify personally the circumstances of the drainage or condition of a road surface so that they can then write to the Under-Secretary, and eventually attention gets paid to what they have brought forward. It simply is the negation of sensible administration.
Those environmental matters which I mention are matters with either negligible political content or none whatever. I really do not think that we are steering into the eye of a communal storm by making the suggestions which I have been putting forward.
I move on to only slightly more sensitive ground when I say that there is an area, though it needs to be carefully delineated, in planning administration, where the district councils ought to be more than consultative. What was my delight when I read in the Cockcroft

1823
Report, the background of which we shall have the opportunity to debate more fully on Monday, that
"there should be a statutory requirement for the Department to recognise that councillors should have more than a consultative role."
The right hon. Gentleman would do well to take that into account when he is considering the principles on which his line should be drawn. Personally, I think that very often the application of general planning policy—the application of what I hope will be an improved planning policy—is something which can be, not merely safely and properly but with much greater efficiency, justice and uniformity of application left to the representatives of the local community than it can be discharged by a bureaucratic authority with an occasional push or pull from a Minister and a Member of Parliament.
There is then the whole area of—forgive me; I was going to say "policing", but that could be misunderstood—the whole area of different types of control which in Great Britain are functions of the lower tier of local authorities and could be perfectly well discharged by the lower tier in Northern Ireland. I have in mind, for example, the administration of the Shops Acts and the laws governing weights and measures, Recently the matter of the control of dogs has been causing great perturbation in both the urban and the rural areas of Northern Ireland. Now, in Great Britain, there is both a financial and an administrative function for local authorities in that matter. It could very properly be discharged in Northern Ireland by the corresponding local authorities—the district councils.
The hon. Member does not like that?
The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): Weights and measures matters are administered by county authorities.
Mr. Powell: Ah, yes, but we do not have county councils in Northern Ireland. I quite thought I must have made some more serious mistake than that. Here again, the Secretary of State will no doubt consider whether this is a portentous function which in the circumstances of Northern Ireland ought to be reserved to a grand upper tier or devolved
1824
Administration, or whether we could actually allow the district councils to have some responsibility for weights and measures.
There is in the right hon. Gentleman's approach a virtue which I believe we should seek wherever possible in dealing with constitutional matters in Northern Ireland. The virtue is that of closing no options. The approach does nothing to close the option of an upper tier of local government, because, if there is to be an upper tier, these matters will still have to be dealt with by a lower tier. It does not close the option of a devolved Administration, because in parts of Great Britain where there is to be devolved Administration it has been no obstacle that there was already both an upper and a lower tier of administration.
So these are ways by which we can progressively bring back—I think I am using the Secretary of State's own words—democratic responsibility in the Province, can diminish and eventually extinguish the evils of direct rule, without at any stage necessarily and avoidably foreclosing the options for the future. From that point of view we can renew the order today with the sense of some progress having been made in the past 12 months and more lying ahead.
1 will detain the House and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who is to wind up for the Opposition for only one minute more, because it would be wrong not to refer at all to security when the other Act we are renewing is the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I want to say simply that in that matter this has been an important debate and that the Government, after this debate, ought to take the report away and study sentence by sentence what hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have said; for behind what they have said—I have in mind particularly the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—there lies personal experience of the realities; and woe betide the management of security policy if it gets away from the realities as they actually are on the ground.
That, I believe, has been the contribution which this debate has made once

1825
more to the maintenance of a security policy which—under whatever qualifications we may attach—is showing progress. But in the last resort that progress has, and can have, one basis only. That is the fact, now acknowledged, that force cannot and will not determine the future of Northern Ireland. It is only a tragedy that that truth, now so evident to everyone else, is not yet recognised by those who continue to pursue violence. That is what somehow makes these later deaths, which come at a time when the hopelessness of violence is self-evident, more tragic than those which went before in the years when it was still not certain, as it is certain today, that violence would not have its way.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: At the beginning of his own remarkable speech, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of the Secretary of State's opening speech as being an admirable survey of the past year. I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the Secretary of State's speech. It was robust and forthright, and when he said that he had no intention of parleying with terrorists or murderers one could only wish that every Minister in this Government was so determined to follow the line which he has admirably set.
I think that the Secretary of State slightly undervalued the constitutional changes which have been foreshadowed in the past year. As the right hon. Member for Down, South reminded us, we have had the Speaker's Conference on increasing the representation for Northern Ireland, which has made substantial recommendations. The reason why the Government chose to call that Speaker's Conference may have been the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from Northern Ireland, but I note that a mere two years ago the then Secretary of State, now Home Secretary, argued that it would fly in the face of Irish history to increase the representation from Northern Ireland. I suspect that the change of heart which has been brought about is not entirely unconnected with the fact that certain spectacular Conservative by-election victories have whittled away the Government's overall majority in the House.
1826
I attach importance also to the Secretary of State's words about local government and his reference to the survey which he intends to make on the question of the district councils. Exactly how important that will be remains to be seen, but I note the Secretary of State's awareness of the importance of local government. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the right hon. Member for Down, South reminded us, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which does not have an adequate local government structure. I note also that the Government's change of emphasis—shall we say—follows proposals made by my own party. It will not be the first time that Ministers in the present Government have followed the lead given by the Conservative Party.
Naturally, most of the debate has turned on the question of security, and it was only right that so many hon. Members—notably the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—should refer to the British Army's contribution. There are still 13,000 Service men there, and I am delighted that the Northern Ireland pay supplement has been doubled. We have pressed for this over a considerable period. It should be noted, however, that a substantial number of soldiers serving on emergency tours in Northern Ireland are still receiving a salary lower than that which they would have if they were with their units in Germany. In my view, no Service men should be asked to take a cut in pay as a result of moving on an emergency tour to Northern Ireland.
I was glad that it was an English Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who referred in particular to the gains in expertise, skill and equipment of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks about the training bounty and about the radio sets for the UDR.
Having also visited our forces in Northern Ireland, and the UDR in particular, I believe that one of the most notable developments in the past year has been the success of the 14 platoons, the permanent cadre, of the UDR. We had pressed the Government to introduce

1827
this full-time element. We are glad that it has worked, and we hope that it can be built upon.
Many hon. Members have paid substantial tributes to the RUC, but perhaps the greatest tribute to it in recent months was paid not by any hon. Member but by Mr. Seamus Twomey in the document to which the hon. Member for Armagh referred. When we consider whether we should continue the emergency provisions, it is worth noting that in that document, meant for the IRA's internal consumption, Mr. Twomey referred to the effectiveness of the three-day and seven-day detention orders. He also referred to the immense success the RUC interrogators had had as a result of the psychological pressures they had been able to exert. Again, I note, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), that that was an internal document meant for IRA consumption, and there was no allegation that the interrogators were beating confessions out of the men and women who were being questioned.
Naturally, the Amnesty International report has had a divided reception in the House. I am glad that there is to be an independent inquiry under His Honour Judge Bennett. I note that the terms of reference call upon the judge and his colleagues
"To examine police procedures and practice in Northern Ireland relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences"
and that they are then meant to go on
"to examine the operation of the present procedures for dealing with complaints".
As the Secretary of State knows, I am concerned that the investigation will take a substantial time and that during it Amnesty International's charges will lie on the table relatively unanswered and the myth of mistreatment will go substantially unchallenged. I hope that the Secretary of State will call upon the judge and his colleagues to produce as quickly as possible an interim report in which they can look at the rules governing interrogation, pass judgment on them and then go on to consider whether the procedures for dealing with complaints that the rules have been broken are adequate. I think that in this way a certain number of the apprehensions that have been aroused could be quite quickly dealt with. I am anxious lest the report should take
1828
many months to prepare adequately and that the charges should not receive official rebuttal before the full report is ready.
The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the discussions that he has had with some Ministers in the Republic of Ireland. I have referred to the arrest of Mr. Seamus Twomey. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has referred to the difficulties, which we all know and recognise, of dealing with the "godfathers" of crime, the organisers of the IRA outrages. It seems that in the Republic they are able to deal with these "godfathers" rather better than we are. They hit the leadership of the IRA hard, and these men spend a substantial period of time in prison. It is the lesser terrorists who seem there to go free.
That cause us all substantial concern. Earlier this year I met a member of the RUC who had lost a hand, an eye and a leg as a result of a bomb outrage. We know who committed that outrage. He is living free across the border and cannot, it seems, be arrested. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, in his contacts with the Dublin Government, will redouble his pressure on Ministers there to try to ensure that those men who commit crimes in the North, if they cannot be extradited, can at least be brought to book in the South.
In the corresponding debate last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who is in Northern Ireland today, said:
"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 people throughout the whole of the island of Ireland."—[Official Report, 30th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 707.]
5.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I understand that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has had to cut his speech rather short. He will understand that I shall not be able to take up all the many points raised in the debate, important as all of them are, but my right hon. Friend the Seretary of State gave a very full exposition of the situation in Northern Ireland, covering most aspects. I shall therefore need only to pick up certain points. Two of the main

1829
aspects were direct rule and the Amnesty International report, which one imagined would figure fully in the debate.
We have had a thorough and well-informed debate on matters of great concern to the 1½ million people who live in Northern Ireland. Very properly, the major role in the debate has been played by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I shall try to answer as many as possible of the points raised and my colleagues and I will give careful attention to all the others. There are to be two more debates next week, one on Monday and another on Friday. Knowing the ingenuity of the Members from Northern Ireland, I am sure that they will get some of these matters before my colleagues again.
Hon. Members will appreciate that there will not necessarily be agreement from the Government Benches to all that has been said. In some instances, I do not suppose that anyone would expect me, for security reasons, to give the full reply that one would normally want to give, but I undertake to look at everything that has been said. Those questions which have not been answered from the Dispatch Box will be dealt with, and I shall write to hon. Members where appropriate.
My right hon. Friend, in opening, repeated the fundamental principles on which Government policy is based. These principles are widely supported in the House. In a nutshell, they concern Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and the need for future forms of devolved government to command widespread confidence and support. These principles are not new, but they are not any worse for that. No one in the House or outside it should make the mistake of thinking that principles become less valid for being often repeated. The Government's policy is founded on reality and fairness, and we shall not be pushed or pulled, by pressures of any sort, into ignoring reality or legislating unfairness.
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government recognise that there is a real need to return to the control of locally elected representatives the bulk of the administration of Northern Ireland. Such a goal is realisable in a variety of detailed ways. My right hon. Friend has
1830
made it clear that he is not committed to any particular set of arrangements. But no system will work without political agreement, freely negotiated, in Northern Ireland. Any new arrangement must be made acceptable to a majority in both parts of the community. If it is rejected by one or the other, it will not survive. This is not abstract political theory but a matter of hard fact. That is the main weakness at the heart of certain proposals for the creation of an upper tier of local government, but there are also practical objections.
The Review Body on Local Government in Northern Ireland, under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Macrory, published its report in 1970. It said that Northern Ireland needed only one regional body to administer the major local government services. It also concluded that it would be convenient if that body were also the regional Parliament.
As the House will know, the structure of local government was reformed in this way and, since October 1973, Northern Ireland Departments, either directly or through area boards, have been responsible for the administration of some services which elsewhere in Great Britain are the responsibility of local authorities. We believe that Macrory was right to conclude that only one body was necessary at this level. Since it is intended, one day, to have devolved government back in Northern Ireland, I do not think it would make any sense at all now to create three or four new councils.
My experience of Northern Ireland is not as deep as that of Opposition Members present, but since 1974 I have covered a lot of ground. I am now in my fifth year, and I certainly understand some of the problems better than when I went over to the Province in 1974. I think that the right approach is to take account of the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, to allow the existing administrative structure to get on with its job, with whatever minor improvements can be incorporated, and at the same time to give every encouragement to the parties to reach agreement on a new form of government which recognises that both majorities and minorities have rights, and which allows the elected representatives of both communities to participate on a fair basis.
Mr. Bradford: I know that the Minister is pressed for time but I should like to put a question to him, if I may. The minority community having been hauled on to the streets by the Civil Rights movement, and having been hauled on to the streets and given all kinds of bogus promises by the SDLP, does not the Minister agree that the minority community, more than anyone else, is awaiting constructive initiatives from the British Government, such as applying an upper tier of local government, which has been tried on this side of the channel and which, by definition, is partnership?
Mr. Concannon: We are looking for some way of participating in fairness. If any scheme is turned down or is not acceptable to a majority of the minority, it will not work. I do not want to go back into history. I would much sooner look forward. However, we must all accept that there is a sizeable minority in Northern Ireland which, whether we like it or not and whether it is right or wrong, believes that it was treated unjustly and as second-class citizens. I am not saying that that happened, but the people concerned think that it happened.
In his five-point plan my right hon. Friend is trying to underline the Government's further efforts to reach agreement in the best interests of the whole of the people in the Province.
We shall take note of the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I endorse some of the points that he made. During the time that I have been concerned with environment, I have spent a lot of time trying to get an old lady's ballcock repaired somewhere in South Tyrone. In the end I said "If it is not repaired, I shall hop in my car and do it myself. It will be cheaper." Those are the kind of points which I think the right hon. Gentleman was putting forward.
However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not as simple as putting matters back into local government hands. We, as Ministers, accept that we are the only people to whom Members of Parliament can bring their problems. We must do our duty of signing letters and looking into the complaints of Members of Parliament. As I said, we shall take note of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and look at them.
1832
Several hon. Members mentioned the Amnesty International report. Seemingly, some of my hon. Friends felt that we were not treating this report seriously enough. That is quite misleading. We are treating the report responsibly, but we do not accept that the incomplete and unsubstantiated evidence in it justifies the firmness of its conclusions. It points to a need for an investigation, but certainly does not prove a great deal.
The positive nature of the Government's response shows our continuing concern for human rights, while dealing with the problems of violence and the terrorist campaign. Terrorism involves a dilemma for all democratic Governments. The need is to strike a balance between combating terrorist activity and maintaining the liberties of a free society. Basically, what we are talking about today is restricting some of those freedoms to the benefit of the whole of Northern Ireland.
We therefore take most seriously, as does the Chief Constable, any criticism of existing procedures or allegations of maltreatment of persons in police custody. We are doing all in our power to see that such compaints are thoroughly and swiftly investigated. That is why we are particularly disappointed that Amnesty International has refused to make available to the Director of Public Prosecutions the material relevant to its complaints. We cannot deal with anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked "Why not a public inquiry?". I do not know whether I need rehearse the arguments. My right hon. Friend has done so time and time again. I think that the arguments are accepted by the great majority of the House. At this moment I do not think that it makes sense to cut across all our existing procedures, certainly before one part of them is thoroughly and impartially examined.
The letter sent by Amnesty International to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West must have had a remarkable circulation. The Amnesty report makes it clear that 78 cases were considered where there were allegations of maltreatment by the police. In 39 cases, the mission interviewed the persons concerned but no corroborative medical

1833
evidence was submitted. In 26 cases, the mission received documentary medical evidence but was unable to interview the persons concerned. In 13 cases, the mission both interviewed the persons concerned and considered medical evidence. The Amnesty mission itself carried out medical examinations of some sort of five individuals out of the total of 78 cases. Thus, the amount of evidence available to Amnesty varied appreciably from case to case.
We were conscious that in many instances other evidence existed, and our aim was to ensure that the proper legal authority should be able to look at the whole picture. After all, evidence of injury is not evidence of how that injury was caused. We all hear rumours from Northern Ireland about various incideris, and we who live and work in Northern Ireland know about some of the intimidation and so on that goes on. I wish only that Amnesty had taken a little more careful note of some of the matters that my right hon. Friend put to it. That is why we regret Amnesty's refusal to identify cases in confidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As my right hon. Friend said, he wants to get at the truth. We cannot get at the truth with the Amnesty report as it is at the moment.
The Bennett inquiry, which has already begun and had its first meeting, will see whatever papers are necessary in the discharge of its remit, but I must remind the House that its function is not to adjudicate on individual cases. Allegations of criminal offences can be dealt with only by the due process of law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West suggested that proceedings for damages in respect of ill-treatment could be brought only against named members of the RUC. I should have thought that Section 14 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act was quite explicit in laying down that proceedings may be taken against the Chief Constable in respect of torts committed by members of the police force. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that the police refuse to give names of individual officers in Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons. But, of course, it is possible, and the correct wriy of pursuing any civil claim is
1834
to proceed against the Chief Constable in respect of his employee.
Two or three hon. Members referred to Provisional Sinn Fein. It has never been the desire of the Government to punish people for their political views, provided that the laws of libel, incitement, and so on are observed. It is right that the Provisional Sinn Fein should be able to reflect the shade of political opinion which it represents. This has the advantage of illustrating the extreme paucity of its public support. The more that we make it go political and face the ballot box, the better.
This is not to suggest, however, that if a direct connection between PIRA crimes and PSF is established, action should be inhibited. Recently, members of that movement have been arrested for offences including membership of the PIRA and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I should emphasise that this is not an attempt to prohibit free speech. It is another example of our avowed policy to proceed against the men of violence and their supporters by the application of the rule of law.
The Bill to implement the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference will be introduced as parliamentary circumstances permit. It will be published, as virtually all Bills are, at the time of First Reading. No useful purpose would be served by publishing it before then. Whether it is introduced in this Session or the next will make little difference in practice. The new constitution would not come into existence before the next General Election, even if the Bill were passed tomorrow.
I am afraid that time is beating me. I should like to have discussed the UDR, the RUC, and so on. Perhaps I might just say, on the first motion, that we try to apply direct rule with as much care as possible. I think that that is accepted by everyone in the House. As for the emergency, I think that the speeches by hon. Members today fully recognise that the motion to extend the emergency powers should be passed.
Finally, I should like to add my thanks and those of my colleagues to the Armed Forces, the police, the prison service and, not least, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who, in the circumstances, are the real losers.
Question put:—

Division. No. 241

AYES

5.30p.m.

Anderson, Donald

English, Michael

Perry, Ernest

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

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

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Carter, Ray

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Goodhart, Philip

Sinclair, Sir George

Cohen, Stanley

Hodgson, Robin

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Janner, Greville

Tuck, Raphael

Cryer, Bob

Kaufman, Gerald

Weatherill, Bernard

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kerr, Russell

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Wrigglesworth, Alan

Dormand, J. D.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mills, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Dunn, James A.

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Mr. A. W. Stallard and

Eadie, Alex

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. Ted Graham.

NOES

NIL

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. James Kilfedder and

Rev. Ian Paisley.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved.
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (GOVERNMENT)

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Ordet 1978, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Ordered,
  That in respect of the Representation of the People Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses, and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Graham.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the three motions to approve Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 0.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Maximum Additional Component) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
  AGRICULTURE
  That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 768), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

  OVERSEAS AID
  That the draft International Finance Corporation (Further Payment to Capital Stock) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suspend the sitting for five minutes.
  5.40 p.m.
  Sitting suspended.
  Sitting resumed—

FOOD PRODUCTION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words about another important subject. Having saved the Government as the only West Country Member here on the important issue of Northern

1837
Ireland, I am pleased that I can turn to an important subject about which I know a little more.
I declare an interest in farming and meat plants. When we think of the Government's responsibility for food production, there is one word that is crucial to agriculture and its future. It is the word "confidence". It is more important than many other words. In the last three or four years, confidence has been sadly lacking under this Government.
Food production is of major importance to the country. About two-thirds of our temperate food is produced here. It is easy for some folk to think that we can rely on food from other countries, but this has real dangers. One has only to look at what is happening in Australia, where there is a severe shortage of production, to see that that attitude is wrong.
If we want home-grown food, we must have a confident British agriculture industry. The Government have a responsibility for such matters. How can we expect further investment in British agriculture without long-term confidence? As I hope to show, many aspects of Government policy have had a serious effect on confidence in British agriculture.
Farmers would like to hear the Government trumpeting the value of home-grown food as much as they trumpet the value of home-grown oil. We hear much about home-grown oil and its advantages to the balance of payments. What about trumpeting the value of home-grown food?
Consumers are not aware of the position that British agriculture is in. There is lack of confidence. The effects of the green pound are serious to the pig industry. My message to consumers is that if they want British food we must have a healthy and confident agriculture industry. They might have to pay a slight increase in price sometimes, they might have to pay for some storage costs, but in the long run that is better than being held to ransom by world shortages.
What are some of the major fears which stem mainly from the Government's policies? They are fears which produce a real lack of confidence. First, there is the fear of taxation. Under a Socialist Government farmers have experienced fairly heavy taxation. There are also the prob-
1838
lems of the capital transfer tax and the capital gains tax. The Government have made some efforts to help in that direction, but the effect on farms and small businesses is serious.
Extra insurance contributions are to be imposed. That will not help confidence on the part of the small business man, let alone British farmers. One of the most serious articles that I have read in an agriculture paper appeared in the Big Farm Weekly. Under the heading
"Our future role—AMC Chairman"
it stated:
"The main purpose of lending by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in the future may be to help the purchase by other farmers of land which some owners will have to sell in order to pay their taxes."
That is a most serious matter. Indeed, if there is anything that would sap confidence, it is a statement such as that. I am not blaming Mr. Glyn, the chairman, one little bit for making those remarks. What I am saying is that the Government should not, through taxation, sap confidence in this way.
Then there is the proposed wealth tax. Nothing could reduce confidence more than this. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government realise the effect of a wealth tax on British agriculture. Certainly my party would never introduce this, and such an assurance from the Government would indeed restore confidence to agriculture. If we had this tax, it would be a real body blow.
What about land nationalisation? The Minister of Agriculture himself said the other day that the Government would not be introducing land nationalisation in the life of this Parliament. True enough. But what happens if there is a Socialist Government next time? I am pretty certain that a wealth tax would be on the cards then, and I believe that the farming community should beware.
Then what about future needs in production? The lack of any firm guidelines from the Government has weakned confidence in the future. The National Farmers' Union is quite right when it says "We want to know what is wanted from us in this country as regards food production." The National Farmers' Union would, of course, like to see "Food from Our Own Resources" brought up to date. So would I. I think it is only

1839
fair and right that this should be done, so that we know where we are going. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer, even at this late hour, what exactly the position is as regards bringing "Food from Our Own Resources" up to date, so that the farming community knows exactly where it stands.
All these things which I have mentioned weaken confidence. I believe that it is the duty of any Government to see that confidence is restored by dealing with these matters.
I turn now to the food industry and the processors. The relationship between the processing industry and agriculture is very close, because 70 per cent. of United Kingdom agricultural production is processed before it reaches the consumer. It is therefore important that, before any major decisions are reached on agricultural policy or a review is made of the current position, the interests of the food manufacturers are taken fully into account. I believe that the Government have a major responsibility, because the food manufacturing industry has serious problems.
The profitability of food manufacturers has been severely eroded over the past four or five years through price controls. I speak frankly. The Conservatives were certainly not free of criticism in these matters. One has only to look at profitability when the Conservatives were in power to see that the damage started then. But something needs to be done. The slight improvements that we have had in 1975, 1976 and 1977 have now been completely eroded by the Price Commission legislation introduced on 1st August 1977.
I believe that, because of the position of the food processors and manufacturers, consumers are very much at risk, and this is very undesirable. Again, the Government have a real responsibility in these matters.
I now turn to the poultry inqdustry. More and more consumers are turning to poultry meat, and it is extremely important that the industry is not only profitable but has fair treatment. The poultry meat industry is one of the rare sections of agriculture that has to stand on its own feet. It does not get a lot of help, and at present it lacks confidence. Something ought to be done
1840
to help the poultry meat industry to restore its confidence.
What do we find when we look into the problems and difficulties of the poultry meat industry? We find that the industry is facing considerable expenditure in adapting to EEC requirements of inspection. The United Kingdom industry did not oppose this. Indeed, it has gone to great lengths to co-operate in regard to these standards. But fundamental to this support was the requirement to have parity with the poultry meat industries in the Community. That is not happening, and this is why the industry is in serious difficulty. It is causing lack of confidence.
It is true that the Government are now prepared to make about £1 million available to help with the cost of training the poultry meat inspectors. Although we recognise the value of what the Government are doing in this respect, what is required is parity with the poultry meat industries in the Community. I hope that the Government will deal with the anomalies and disadvantages from which our poultry meat industry suffers. Representatives of our poultry meat industry have told me that it is small wonder that the industry doubts the Government's good faith in their protestations of an intention to protect and promote the industry's interests. That is a very unpleasant thing to say, but the Government should have discussions with representatives of the industry and try to allay the doubts and fears which exist, because it is important for the consumer that in the long term the industry is stable and viable.
The Government have a major responsibility for the present state of the pig industry. The National Farmers' Union is right in pointing to the Government's failures in this respect. Numbers and profitability are down. Worse of all, Community farmers are gaining a much greater share of the market. I recently toured a very well-organised farm at Dorchester. Its killing-out percentage is 70, with a 3·2 to 1 conversion ratio. However, despite all the knowledge and skill available on the farm and the good-quality pigs, the farm was losing about £1 a pig. How British farmers must hate the headline in the Big Farm Weekly which said
"German pig herd is set for a boom".

1841
I did not join the Common Market to see the Germans, the Danes and the Dutch taking a larger share of our pig-meat market. The Government should have done more to help the pig industry in its difficulties, particularly with the composition of the monetary compensation amounts. It is not only the pig producers who are affected but the processing industry, which produces bacon and tinned hams and other products, and jobs are at stake.
I therefore hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he intends to redouble his efforts to save our pig industry so that those working in it can be assured that they will have a profitable job. The problems of the pig industry demand and deserve great attention from the Government.
5.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). In addressing ourselves to what he said, we should, I think, first look carefully at the present position in United Kingdom agriculture.
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to emphasise the importance of confidence in the industry. I am tempted simply to read at length from a recent article by a national newspaper correspondent who, after visits to the Devon County Show—a show in the hon. Gentleman's own area—and other shows, described farmers as having renewed confidence and being increasingly hopeful about the winter wheat harvest and busily planning to expand dairy herds and sheep numbers, with a boom in dairying and perhaps a memorable year for horticulture in prospect. He advised the "gloom stirrers", as he called them, that they had secured quite a lot from the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
However, I shall not pursue that but will give my own assessment. In May, we secured a very satisfactory outcome to the price negotiations which represented a fair balance between the interests of consumers and producers. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention that relationship. The increase in common prices implied an increase in returns to producers, net of extra feed costs, of
1842
some £35 million to £40 million, in addition to the £150 million to £200 million resulting from the green pound devaluation on which the Government had earlier secured a sensibly phased timetable for change. This takes into account the effect on cereal costs and so on.
But the confidence in the industry goes a long way. The hon. Gentleman, I know, is interested in the dairy herd, and this is an important aspect of agriculture. The price package was notable for the agreement which fully and permanently safeguards the Milk Marketing Boards, which was widely and warmly welcomed. I am sure that this was of considerable interest to the hon. Gentleman, who has expressed his concern about the boards from time to time. We also secured better arrangements for the United Kingdom butter subsidy than had been proposed and a reduction in the MCAs for pigmeat, to which reference has been made, which is coming into effect within the next few days.
There has rightly been reference to the matter of the Budget and taxation. The Budget was another event of importance for the farming industry. Last year, the hon. Member for Devon, West advocated a system for allowing profits to be averaged over a period of years. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have heard his pleas, because he announced a change on these lines on 11th April. The provision for averaging tax over two years is worth some £10 million to the farming industry in a full year. Farmers are helped also by the increased first-year capital allowance for agricultural buildings and works and the measures to aid small businesses, especially the so-called roll-over facility for capital gains tax on gifts of assets used in a business and the extension to all business assets of the 50 per cent. relief for capital transfer tax.
We have said time and again that there is a relationship between taxation and industry, especially the agriculture industry, and I think that my right hon. Friend has had well-deserved tributes for his response to the representations and for the results on this score. These developments give grounds for satisfaction to the farming industry. But, of course, there are always complaints from time to time—and rightly so—and in considering these

1843
it is helpful to look at what is actually happening in practice in the various sectors.
In the milk sector, I do not see any signs of lack of confidence. Production continues month by month to exceed even last year's record levels. Prices for cows in milk are very high, calf prices are high, the number of artificial inseminations has risen and profitability is high. We shall in any case be reviewing the position when we fix the maximum wholesale prices for the coming winter.
The hon. Gentleman did mention the beef sector, but this is another part of agriculture in which confidence is important. The new target price scale means that the average support price for 1978–79 is some 11 per cent. above the average for the previous year, itself some 16 per cent. above the average for the year before that. Market prices are firm, and, indeed, they have recently been at record levels.
I accept that there is some concern among producers about Irish imports and the size of the Anglo-Irish net MCAs, but, while it is true that Irish imports last year had an undue effect on our prices, this year we have a rather different situation, with a firmer market which so far has had no difficulty in absorbing the imports of Irish carcase beef and cattle. Producers have in any event the dual protection of intervention and the variable premium system.
The hon. Gentleman was right to mention today, as he has on many other occasions, the problems of the pig industry. In the pig sector, producers' returns are much improved this year. I have in mind that the Cambridge Economics Unit shows an average profit of £15 per £100 output in the six months ending in March. Meanwhile, the breeding herd is showing signs of a recovery.
I know that the bacon curing industry is facing difficulty, but the cuts in MCAs have helped to improve its competitive position. The MCA calculation on bacon sides is now £66 lower than it would have been without the green pound devalution.
The hon. Gentleman should not overlook, in his fair assessment, the work already done for the pig industry. In November 1976 we had the basis of the
1844
MCA calculations modified in a way which reduced the pigmeat MCAs by 8½ per cent. Then, because we did not think that that went far enough, we introduced a subsidy which, until the European Court forced its suspension, was worth £17 million to the pig industry. That subsidy was greatly welcomed at the time when the industry was facing the greatest pressure.
All these matters should be taken into account. They include the 7½ per cent. phased devaluation of the green pound this year, which does not apply to cereals until 1st August. Therefore, that has given extra help.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the sheep sector, but I know that he has an interest in it. Last year our mutton and lamb exports increased by just over one-third, and the June and December returns showed a slight increase in the breeding herd, which was encouraging. I think that producers' confidence is well founded. As members of the most efficient sheep industry in the Community, they can look to the future with assurance. Discussions on a Community regime will, of course, go on for some time and all concerned can be certain that we shall seek a fair balance between the interests of producers and consumers, with a fair and economic return for our producers, but not the kind of price increases would would damage consumption.
The other sector which is important to the industry, particularly to my own constituency, is the potato sector, where there have been many uncertainties in recent times because of the Commission's failure in the past two years to decide what it wants about the potato regime. We have been closely in touch with the industry, and we have now come to the conclusion that there can be no Community regime for potatoes in time for the 1978 crop. Nevertheless, we have just announced that the guarantee will continue to next year. This will give a valuable degree of support and, I hope, confidence to producers in a year when their costs are lower, owing to the very big drop in the price of seed compared with last year.
My brief survey of farming shows an industry in good order. The net product was certainly hit by the drought in 1976. We must not forget the drought and the

1845
difficulties of the year before in some sectors, especially the potato and sugar beet sectors. The net product was certainly hit by the drought in 1976, but last year it rose by over 25 per cent. and we expect a further increase this year.
Whatever theories hon. Members press about green currencies—we are lectured on this matter from time to time—and the effects on profitability, what is happening in practice gives reassurance. The Government take seriously their responsibilities towards agriculture and the food industry and are providing the right climate and framework for helping development. We are not always in control of the climate, but that is the kind of climate which helps the industry, when the other form of climate is so unpredictable. This is important for those who work in the industry and for consumers.
I turn to the question of resources. We have heard mention of our document "Food from Our Own Resources". It will be clear from what I have said that we are concerned to provide the right framework of assurance in the farming industry about the longer term as well as the short term. It was because we recognised the need for confidence among farmers about the longer term prospects that my right hon. Friend announced the review of "Food from Our Own Resources." Perhaps it might be better named "Food from Our Own Devices", which would give the right initials. We have collected together all the evidence and are considering it. The industry will recognise that it is a job which should not be rushed and that it is not sensible to press us to go faster.
I admit that the hon. Gentleman was not doing that. He is right in suggesting that the industry wants to know about the future and about the guidelines. We hope that it will be possible to publish something in the autumn.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned poultry meat. In this sector supplies are high and the United Kingdom is self-sufficient. The export trade, which had been growing, has been more sluggish in recent months, but internal demand should remain keen.
The hon. Gentleman referred to problems facing the British poultry industry and to various factors. One of these is
1846
the Poultrymeat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976. I should first like to pay tribute to the co-operation that the industry has shown in the arrangements for phasing in the poultry meat inspection service. We have recognised its concern that the whole cost of recruitment and training of inspectors should not be borne entirely by the industry.
I have announced today details of the Government's assistance towards the cost of meat inspection. The Government have decided to provide assistance towards the setting up of the local authority poultry meat inspection service, which is required to be in full operation by August 1979. Grants at the rate of 50 per cent. of the eligible expenditure will be payable in respect of staff employed and trained for this purpose.
The detailed arrangements are to be discussed with the appropriate organisations. These are very important points. We estimate that the Supplementary Estimates will be presented in due course and that the great bulk of this expenditure will be incurred in England, and to take account of it the appropriate Ministry cash limit for 1978–79 will be increased by about £1 million.
I am aware, of course, of the concern also about the economics of small-scale egg production if implementation of the regulations leads to significant difficulties amongst slaughterhouses specialising in the processing of spent hens. The NFU has been in touch with us on this matter, and I understand that it is trying to assess what the scale of the problems could be nationally. I find it interesting to refer to these matters because in my constituency I have sugar beet and potato growing, arable farming, the usual mixed dairy farming, and, of course, one of the biggest poultry and egg producers in Europe.
I want to say a few words about issues relating to the common agricultural policy. When talking of the future of our industry, we must remember that we cannot be in the situation now where we are completely responsible for what happens. We are a member of the EEC, and we want to be sure that the framework within which our industry functions is the right one.
Earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman advocated the gradual devaluation of the

1847
green pound to reach parity with the Community. If by this he means aligning the green rate for the pound with the market rate used for MCA purposes, he is calling for an increase in United Kingdom farm support prices of about 30 per cent. Does he really believe that our agriculture needs an increase of that kind, which could produce an additional 6 per cent. increase on food prices, and thus an additional cost to the consumer of over £1,000 million, at a time when the Conservative Front Bench are criticising the Government for the increase in food prices?
I am very pleased that recently, for a period, food prices have been remaining steady, and, indeed, have been falling. The Government's policy is clear. We do not believe that MCAs should be phased out unless common prices can be set in a representative unit—the EUA—rather than the present unit, which is based on the currencies of the joint float, and unless they can be set at a sensible level.
These are some of the important points that we should take into account, and we have made this point clearly in the discussion of MCAs which took place in the context of the price fixing, with the result that the Council of Ministers eventually agreed that the reduction of MCAs should be pursued
"in the light of a satisfactory price policy and the development of a more stable relationship between Community currencies."
The hon. Gentleman was right to focus attention on the importance of British
1848
agriculture. Over the years, under successive Governments, from the time of the Minister who brought in the 1947 Act—Tom Williams, who is still held by all parties as being the man who laid the foundation stone—all parties have been doing their best to give confidence to the industry.
In the changing times in which we live, with our position in the Community, I believe that my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to give the United Kingdom industry confidence despite the uncertainties.
I hope that I have said enough about our farming industry and the CAP. The Government do carry out their responsibilities successfully—responsibilities towards the food-purchasing industries, which are such an important part of the whole economy. The Government balance the interests of the various sectors, seeking to follow policies which are in the national interest, looking after the interests of both the producer and the consumer.
I end by quoting from the Modern Farmer—
The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes pass Six o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Anaesthetists
  Anaesthetists
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Midwives (Ipswich)
  Midwives (Ipswich)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Children (Foster Care)
  Children (Foster Care)
  Child Welfare Officers
  Child Welfare Officers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Poultry Meat
  Poultry Meat
DEFENCE
  Air Rescue Search (Drifting Fishermen)
  Air Rescue Search (Drifting Fishermen)
  Millbank Technical Services Ltd.
  Millbank Technical Services Ltd.
  Armed Forces (Overseas Allowance)
  Armed Forces (Overseas Allowance)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Stock Appreciation Scheme (Tax Deferrals)
  Stock Appreciation Scheme (Tax Deferrals)
  Building Societies, Life Assurance Companies and National Savings
  Building Societies, Life Assurance Companies and National Savings
  Jubilee Crowns
  Jubilee Crowns
  Life Assurance
  Life Assurance
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Pay
  Members' Pay
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Murder
  Murder
  Special Patrol Group
  Special Patrol Group
ENERGY
  Power Station Construction
  Power Station Construction
  Coal
  Coal
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
  TOP SALARIES REVIEW BODY
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Border Incidents
  Border Incidents
TRANSPORT
  Railway Line Closures
  Railway Line Closures
  Driving Tests (Greater London Area)
  Driving Tests (Greater London Area)
  A40 (Greenford Roundabout)
  A40 (Greenford Roundabout)
EMPLOYMENT
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Trade Unions (Membership)
  Trade Unions (Membership)
  Northern Region (Industrial Training)
  Northern Region (Industrial Training)
  Unemployment Figures (EEC Nationals)
  Unemployment Figures (EEC Nationals)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Youth Employment Services
  Youth Employment Services
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Petroleum Licences
  Petroleum Licences
  School Leavers (European Community)
  School Leavers (European Community)
TRADE
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  European Community (Import Surveillance)
  European Community (Import Surveillance)
  Japan
  Japan
  Airports Development
  Airports Development
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
CIVIL SERVICE
  Central Office of Information
  Central Office of Information
  Command Papers
  Command Papers
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  PEARSON COMMISSION (REPORT)
  PEARSON COMMISSION (REPORT)
  MATRIMONIAL INJUNCTIONS
  MATRIMONIAL INJUNCTIONS
  JOYCE McKINNEY
  JOYCE McKINNEY
ENVIRONMENT
  Caravan Sites Act 1968 (Report)
  Caravan Sites Act 1968 (Report)
  Public Authorities and Undertakings (Capital Debt)
  Public Authorities and Undertakings (Capital Debt)
  Public Authorities and Undertakings (Capital Debt)
  Public Authorities and Undertakings (Capital Debt)
  House of Commons (Members' Lobby Letterbox)
  House of Commons (Members' Lobby Letterbox)
WALES
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries

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

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.

FOREIGN BOYCOTTS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER SAFETY BILL
11.7 a.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mottistone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("for a period").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 with Amendment No. 17. As Clause 9(2) is at present worded it could be held that the exemption at the end of the subsection applies only to a hiring or loan for a fixed period, and not to a hiring or loan which is determinable by notice by either party but which is not expressed to be for a specified period. The present exemption in Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 for goods which are let on hire is not limited to a hiring for a period but looks to whether the supply was lawful at the time when it began. This is surely right, and the effect of the three Amendments is to amend Clause 9(2) to bring it into line with the situation which exists at present under the 1961 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("the continuation of") and insert ("anything done in pursuance of the arrangements for").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, leave out line 4.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 11, line 35, leave out second ("and").
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("1970") to end of line 38 and insert (",medicinal products within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968 (except cosmetic and toilet products as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State) and controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, except drugs which are excepted from section 4(1)(b) of that Act (which makes it unlawful to supply a controlled drug) by regulations under section 7(1)(a) of that Act;").
The noble Lord said: with the permission of the Committee I should like to take Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 20. The second, and principal Amendment, has two purposes. First, it brings within the scope of the Bill cosmetic products and toilet preparations which would otherwise be excluded by the exclusion of "medicinal products" from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9(4). Second, it excludes from the scope of the Bill "controlled drugs",

557
the supply of which is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The definition of "medicinal products" in Section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968 is such that it includes many cosmetic products and toilet preparations. It is appropriate for requirements relating to the safety of the great majority of such products to be imposed under the powers provided by the Bill and not under the Medicines Act and it is therefore necessary to take them out of the exclusion of "medicinal products" from the definition of "goods" in Clause 9(4). This is one effect of the second of the two Amendments, the first being a minor consequential Amendment.
The proposed Amendment also excludes from the scope of the Bill drugs which are subject to the controls relating to the supply of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The regime of control provided by that Act is comprehensive and there can be no occasion for the exercise of the powers in the Bill in relation to "controlled drugs"—a term which is defined in the 1971 Act as including products containing such drugs. It is appropriate therefore to exclude "controlled drugs" from the definition of "goods" in the Bill and thus to remove them from its scope. The exclusion of medicinal products from the scope of the Bill was effected by an Amendment in another place. The Government are considering whether it would be appropriate to make some of the powers provided by the Bill—for example, those relating to prohibition notices and hazard warning notices—available in respect of medicinal products, and may seek an Amendment at Report stage enabling this to be done. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert (""publicised information", in relation to a disclosure, means information which, before the disclosure occurred, was published in proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) or in a warning mentioned in paragraph (e) of section 4(3) of this Act;").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 23:
558
Page 12, line 2, after ("and") insert ("any risk of").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment intended to make it quite clear that goods which do not give rise to risk of death but give rise to risk of injury may be regarded as unsafe.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.14 a.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 12, line 4, leave out ("might") and insert ("are designed to be or might reasonably").
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lyell, who unhappily is not able to be here today and who has asked me to express his apologies to the Committee. This is in the nature of a probing Amendment but, like all good probing Amendments, has the merit of being suitable for inclusion in the Bill if the probing proves to be ineffective, which I am sure will not be necessary on this occasion.
It seems necessary to put beyond reasonable doubt that the Bill does not confer on consumers protection which is too wide and more than was originally intended when the Bill was drafted. Consider the case of a carving knife, which, if used properly for the purpose for which it is designed, does not cause undue injury—at least not unless something untoward occurs. On the other hand, if the carving knife is used for purposes for which it is not designed—for example, cutting string on a parcel or something of that sort—it is easy to cause a nasty injury, and I do not think it would be right for consumers to be protected unduly against the liability of the manufacturer if they were to so misuse the implement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has suggested that I should draw a distinction between what might be called risky use and anticipated use, and I believe these would be useful words to consider in this context. Let me give another example: consider an electrical appliance where a plug supplied or manufactured by a different person is fitted to the appliance at or shortly after the time of purchase, and it then proves to be faulty. We understand that the liability to the consumer is even less clear in such circumstances; perhaps my noble friend

559
Lord Mottistone would explain the meaning of the word "safe" in that example.
Another possibility has come to our attention. Apparently there was a case in America where a lady bought a set of electric hair curlers, but instead of using them on her own hair she used them on her poodle's hair, and, not being designed for that purpose, unhappily the poodle suffered injury and indeed died. One wonders whether the manufacturer of those hair curlers would, under this Bill, be liable for the injury to the animal. There is a certain area of lack of clarity on this point and I hope Lord Mottistone will be able to set my mind at rest.
Lord AIREDALE: I support the Amendment. One always finds the odd lunatic who leaves a sharp knife lying about in the children's playroom or something of that kind and I hope it will be explained to us that a situation of that sort is not intended to create a state of unsafety within the meaning of the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I understand that an American court awarded damages to a man who used a hedge-trimmer to cut his hair and suffered injury thereby.
Lord MOTTISTONE: To take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, we are not takling about product liability, which was, I think, his example; we are talking about a definition of "safe" within the meaning of the Bill, and it needs to be thought of particularly in connection with the safety regulations and the various orders and warnings which may be created as a result of the Bill.
The Amendment would alter the definition of "safe" in Clause 9 and would thus be central to the powers in the Bill. Its effect would be to prevent goods from being regarded as unsafe for the purposes of the Bill if the risk of injury arose from a misuse of the goods. That restriction would not apply where the goods themselves caused injury but would apply, as the Amendment is drafted, where injury was caused by circumstances in which the goods were used or kept.
That brings us to the two points made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and
560
endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; but I will give two examples of my own and then return to those points. Unfortunately people, and particularly young children, are not always reasonable in the use to which they put goods. It may not be considered reasonable to open the door of a spin dryer while it is revolving at several hundred revolutions per minute, but a number of accidents have occurred in that way and it has been accepted that, on that account, an interlocking device is needed which prevents the cover of a spin dryer being opened while it is revolving.
Your Lordships will note that this is a safety device which is added to the goods in order to make them safe. If one uses a knife for a purpose for which it is not designed, it is not possible to have that kind of provision which is effective, and so, in that kind of circumstance, no safety regulations in the world will protect people from cutting off their fingers with inappropriate knives. However, there are events and occasions where safety measures can be taken, such as the example I have quoted. Another example is that it is not reasonable for children to insert their fingers or metal implements into electric wall sockets, but before safety shutters were incorporated they did so, with sometimes fatal results. To prevent the Government from imposing safety requirements such as these would seriously limit the effectiveness of the safety regulations.
To come to my noble friend's point about the faulty plug that might be attached to an electrical appliance, standards are established for the design of electric plugs and it could well be that under the terms of Clause 1(2)(c) such plugs will become more widely used, if not used exclusively. For that purpose I think this problem would be met. It will very frequently be necessary to include in safety regulations requirements which take account of aspects of misuse. To prevent the Government from including provisions to this end in safety regulations would be to narrow the scope of safety regulations unacceptably.
I hope that my explanation will satisfy my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think that the restriction that this Amendment would create would not be in the best interests of the

561
Bill. With regard to the comment I heard from over my left shoulder from a noble friend, not having attended the Second Reading debate perhaps he would not be aware that this particular Bill is to bring up to date the Consumer Protection Act 1961, which was passed by the Conservative Government of the time.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not think that there is any purpose in pursuing this matter at any great further length. However, I am still worried about the case of the carving knife, which my noble friend did not deal with. Can my noble friend tell me, before I withdraw this Amendment, whether a carving knife continues to be thought safe when it is used for purposes for which it was not designed? If a consumer chooses to use a carving knife, for example, for cutting string on a parcel, for which it is obviously not intended, and thus does himself an injury, is he, or is he not, protected by this Bill? If he is, it is right that he should be.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I take up this point? If we go on like this we shall arrive at the point of trying to make everything foolproof. The fact of life is that nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I hoped that I had answered this point. The fact is that some pieces of equipment are involved—and knives are a good example. Even I have cut myself many times with knives when using them, no doubt, for purposes for which they were not intended. The point about this is that we cannot have safety regulations which will guard against every known circumstance. What we can do is to have safety regulations which, where appropriate, can call for modifications to equipment to make it safer against being used for the wrong purpose, as in the two examples I quoted. That is as far as one could go.
It is true that we can say that this kind of legislation is only dealing with fringe events. But that is not really so, because the kinds of cases which we were talking about on Second Reading—I do not want to go over the Second Reading debate again—such as shutters on electric sockets so that children cannot put their fingers in them, form a very wide
562
application. This is a reasonable thing to do, but it would not be possible under my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: Could it be added that we must bear in mind that if people are going to cut string on parcels with carving knives there is nothing that the manufacturer of the carving knife can do about it?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes. That is exactly the point. As there is nothing that the manufacturer can do, should he then be liable for the injuries that are caused? I am bound to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the answer that my noble friend has given. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Lyell will want to return to this matter at another stage of the Bill. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert (",and for the purposes of section 1 of this Act the Secretary of State shall be entitled to consider that goods containing radioactive substances are safe or not safe by reference to the radiation from the goods and from other sources and to the consequences of the radiation for users of the goods and other persons;").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take as well Amendment No. 39. The purpose of Amendment No. 24 is to enable the Secretary of State, in considering whether to make safety regulations relating to goods containing radioactive substances and the provisions of such regulations which may require such goods to be approved before they can be marketed, to take account of the peculiar risks of radiation. The level of radiation of goods containing radiation may not itself be such as to cause personal injury to the user. But that amount of radiation, together with radiation from other sources, may give rise to a risk of injury because of the cumulative effect of exposure which is peculiar to radiation hazards. Another matter which must be taken into consideration in making safety regulations is the likely increase in the overall population dose if the supply of any goods containing radioactive substances

563
is to be permitted. Amendment No. 24 enables both these matters to be taken into consideration.
Amendment No. 39, which is an Amendment to the Long Title of the Bill, is consequential upon Amendment No. 24. The Long Title, with its reference to the safety of consumers—specifically consumers—is no longer adequate since regulations involving radioactive substances will take account of persons other than consumers. I should perhaps add that it has been questioned whether other powers are not available in existing legislation. I can say that there are no powers to satisfy this particular point with regard to the Title in the existing legislation except in relation to Community Directives, which control the supply of goods containing radioactive substances. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Repeals and transitional provisions]:
11.29 a.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) If a draft of regulations under section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, a statutory instrument containing the regulations shall not be subject to annulment in pursuance of subsection (6) of that section.")
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("Consumer Protection Act") and insert ("said Act of").
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("(2) and") and insert ("(1A) to").
The noble Lord said: In some cases safety regulations made under this Bill will necessitate consequential amendments or revocations of regulations under the 1961 Act. The purpose of the Amendments is to enable the safety regulations, and the consequential amendments or revocation of the 1961 Act regulations, to be made in the same instrument. But for this Amendment, the safety regulations under the Bill would be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure, and the consequential regulations, amending or revoking the 1961 Act regulations, would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and would not, therefore, have
564
been able to be made in the same instrument. The Parliamentary procedures for making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and under the Bill differ. The former specifies the Negative Resolution procedure while the latter requires the Affirmative Resolution procedure to be followed. It will be convenient if, when safety regulations made under the Bill necessitate amendment or revocation of regulations made under the 1961 Act, the amendment or revocation can be effected in the same Statutory Instrument as safety regulations. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 45, at end insert ("and in section 10(3) the word "(2A)" shall be omitted").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. In the Consumer Protection Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 there is no Section 3(2A). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Prohibition orders, prohibition notices and notices to warn]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 15, line 8, after ("this") insert ("Part of this").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, line 21, at end insert—
("23A. If a person discloses a secret manufacturing process or a trade secret contained in information obtained by him in consequence of the inclusion of the information in written or oral representations made in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule or in a statement made by a witness in connection with such oral representations, then, subject to the following paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine and, on summary conviction, to a fine of an amount not exceeding the statutory maximum; and it is hereby declared that the reference above to written representations includes such written representations as are mentioned in paragraph 19 of this Schedule.
23B. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the preceding paragraph in consequence of his disclosure of a process or trade secret contained in information if—

(a) the information was obtained by him as a person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of this Part of this Schedule to consider the representations in question and the disclosure was made in his report to the Secretary of State about the representations or was made for the purpose of criminal proceedings or an investigation with a view to such proceeding; or

(b) the information was obtained by him otherwise than as a person so appointed and the disclosure was made as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 4(3) of this Act; or

(c) the disclosure was of publicised information.")

The noble Lord said: The Amendment implements the undertaking given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. The proposed Amendment prohibits the disclosure by a person, appointed under paragraphs 10. 16 or 19 of Schedule 1, of any information relating to a secret manufacturing process or a trade secret contained in written or oral representations, or given by a witness in connection with oral representations, otherwise than to the Secretary of State, or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings, or any investigation with a view to such proceedings.
This information should also be protected after it has been disclosed to the Secretary of State. The proposed Amendment accordingly also makes the disclosure of the information—about secret manufacturing processes or trade secrets—by any other person an offence, unless the disclosure was made for one of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause 4(3). However, it would hardly
566
be reasonable to make it an offence to disclose the information concerned if it had already been made known to the public at large. Paragraph 23B(c) of the Amendment therefore provides that it shall not be an offence if the disclosure was of information which had previously been publicised by way of proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) or in a warning mentioned in paragraph (e) of Clause 4(3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 34:
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("and 21 to 23") and insert (",21 and 23 to 23B").
Page 20, line 7, leave out ("and").
Page 20, line 9, at end insert—
("; and
(e) in paragraph 23A of this Schedule the words from "and it is" onwards were omitted and in that paragraph and paragraph 23 B of this Schedule for the references to Part II of this Schedule there were substituted references to provisions of that Part as applied by this paragraph").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 32 applies the new paragraphs 23A and 23B to notices to warn, and deletes the reference to paragraph 22, which is not relevant to notices to warn. Amendment No. 33 is purely a drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 34 removes from the provisions against disclosure in paragraph 23A, in their application to notices to warn, references to "other representations" mentioned in paragraph 19. "Other representations" are those made concerning a prohibition notice after it has been in force for a period, possibly bringing to the attention of the Secretary of State changed circumstances concerning the prohibited goods as a basis for revoking or varying the notice prohibiting their supply. They have no corresponding application to a "notice to warn" as, once a notice has been published, that is it. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be a Schedule to the Bill.
11.36 a.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I hope that I am in order, as is said in the other place, to make a reference here to the

567
Schedule. I should like to make a little caveat by linking Clause 4—dealing with power to obtain information—with the Schedule. This is a safety Bill, and we have inserted into it powers which are very loose. Many years ago a member of my family invented a new process involving a sewing machine. I had better not mention the name of the machine—but it was not a Singer. Ultimately, the machine went around the world. Had the Bill been in existence at that time and had the man concerned talked to his wife about the invention he would have been liable to proceedings.
The firm was able to say that it was no invention of his, but that it belonged to the firm because he had discovered it in the process of doing his job. We have talked quickly about the Bill, but I believe that the position is blurred for someone who, in the process of his job, invents something and then talks in a local pub or club about the invention which he ultimately hopes to patent. A situation could arise in which an innocent inventive mind could be placed in jeopardy. I do not wish to halt this excellent Bill at all, but—
Lord HALE: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting, but I was afraid that he was about to sit down—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am about to sit down.
Lord HALE: Well, that would be a great pity. A few minutes ago I was about 14 clauses behind in the discussion, and later I found that I was about 17 behind. I have been desperately trying to follow the Bill clause by clause. I am not sure to which Schedule my noble friend is referring, nor which Part, and if he could speak for a little longer I would have time to read them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thought that the noble Lord had been listening to the Lord Chairman, and I thought it was quite clear that we were talking about Schedule 1. I did not want to delay the Committee with tautological or rhetorical arpeggios. I feel that I have made my point, and so if any future questions arise on this legislation, it will be noted that
568
this blurred situation had been referred to in Parliament.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to make a comment in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The Bill is about safety and the Schedule is about the rules for various types of orders and warnings. Clause 4, to which the noble Lord referred, deals with the restrictions on information obtained during the course of certain activities. Various people who might be concerned with enforcing safety are restrained from releasing information to third parties. I think I am right in saying that while there could be circumstances in which the noble Lord's inventive friend found himself at cross-purposes with this provision, in the ordinary course of events he would not, because he is not in the safety game. He is not an official, and he is subject to quite different rules and laws about protecting the confidentiality of his employers, which is a quite separate issue and has nothing to do with the Bill.
Of course if the gadget in question was a safety gadget, which he had devised because he was asked to do so, then the provisions might apply. However, it is perfectly reasonable that in the generality of terms we should protect the manufacturers and sellers of goods from too much of the information which is discovered under the Bill being spread to the world at large. Indeed, the various provisions in the Bill to cover this point were considerably tightened up in the debates in another place, much to the delight of all Parties in that place. So the overall regulations for preservation of confidentiality, which have indeed been further tightened up in this Committee, are what is deemed necessary by another place, and indeed by myself, to protect people from the consequences of any actions which may be taken under the Bill which could be detrimental to their business even if they are being law-abiding and following the safety regulations.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement]:
11.41 a.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 35:

569
Page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ("if he has reasonable cause to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened").
The noble Lord said: We are now at Schedule 2, which has the heading "Enforcement", and I wish to speak of paragraph 3, which comes under the sub-heading:
"Powers to enter premises and to inspect and seize goods".
Your Lordships will notice that under paragraph 3 there are sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), and, in particular, that sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) both begin with the words,
"if he has reasonable cause"—
and "he" is the enforcement officer—
"to suspect that relevant provisions have been contravened …"
Your Lordships will also notice that those words, referring to acting on suspicion, do not appear at the beginning of either sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b); and without those words about acting on suspicion sub-paragraph (a), in particular, appears to give very wide powers indeed to enforcement officers. Perhaps I could intervene here to say that I should have mentioned that I am speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 36 as well as No. 35, because I think the point involved is very much the same in each case.
What is it that the enforcement officer may do under sub-paragraph (a) without having reasonable cause to suspect that something is wrong?
"… he may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any relevant provisions have been contravened, inspect any goods and enter any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling".
What do those powers amount to? In order to discover this, one has to read sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 in connection with paragraph 5, and when you come to paragraph 5 you find that if admission to the premises is refused the enforcement officer then has to go before a justice of the peace and, if the justice of the peace
"is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe"
that something is wrong in the premises, then the magistrate may issue a search warrant. But at that stage the enforcement officer can proceed only if he has shown reasonable cause to suspect that all is not well in the premises.
So we come back to paragraph 3 in the light of paragraph 5, and what does it amount to? It amounts to this: the enforcement officer can go into any premises other than a dwelling on a fishing expedition to see whether he may stumble upon some breach of some regulation if the proprietor says that he may. What power is that, and what need have we of a Bill with a clause which says that? Because that is what an enforcement officer can do today without this Bill. You do not even have to be an enforcement officer. It is a free country; anybody, today, can go to the owner of a warehouse and say, "I should like to look round your warehouse", and, provided he is not refused permission, he can go in and have a look round. So what is paragraph 3 saying? It is just about precisely nothing; so what is the point of having it there?
I can think of only one rather sly and unpleasant reason for having it there. I do not suppose that enforcement officers employed by local authorities act unscrupulously and unfairly—I very much hope they do not—but I suppose that, if there is an unscrupulous enforcement officer, and if he goes to the owner of a warehouse and quotes paragraph 3 but is very careful not to quote paragraph 5, which says, "You can refuse me entry if you want to, and then I shall have to show reasonable cause to a magistrate", then in that sort of way I suppose the enforcement officer can bamboozle some warehouse owner into letting him in without his having to take the trouble to go to a magistrate and show reasonable cause. I am bound to say that I hope the Committee does not approve of these fishing expeditions. To begin with, I always understood that the enforcement officers of local authorities are already very busy men, and I should not have thought they needed the power to go into people's premises on fishing expeditions. They have the weights and measures legislation to supervise as well as all the consumer protection legislation, and I dare say other duties as well; and if they have spare time to go fishing in people's warehouses, I should have thought the ratepayers would very much prefer to see a pruning of the staff of the local authority and a reduction in the rates, rather than fishing expeditions.
I know that this Schedule is very largely taken bodily out of Section 162 of the

571
Consumer Credit Act 1974, but I do not think that excuses us from looking very critically indeed at these powers of enforcement. That Act was enacted for a quite different purpose, and it does not in the least follow that the enforcement powers appropriate to that Act are appropriate to this Bill. I think we must bear it in mind that if we do not scrutinise these enforcement powers very carefully every time, it will happen again. The next consumer protection Bill will have the same enforcement provisions copied out from the 1974 Act, and before we know where we are we shall be faced with a series of precedents against which it will be difficult to argue. I should also like to mention that the 1974 Act was a very comprehensive measure indeed. It ran to 193 sections and five Schedules, and occupies 173 pages of the Statute Book. Therefore, the enforcement provisions there did not give Parliament quite the same opportunity to concentrate on this important enforcement matter as is given by the enforcement provisions of this very much shorter measure.
In winding up his Second Reading speech on this Bill the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said very much these words, that we must get more reasonableness written into this Bill. I very much hope that the Committee will say that, above all, we must have reasonableness written into sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
11.50 a.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps I should say that I have great sympathy with the main theme behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think that we are very wise to consider carefully any powers we give to enforcement officers of any kind to invade the privacy of any premises. I think that that makes a great deal of sense. However, I think that in this particular case it is not unreasonable for these particular sub-paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) to be in the Bill. The first point I should like to make—perhaps to clear away the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made about the unscrupulous enforcement officer—is that I would suggest to the Committee that one needs also to consider the unscrupulous traders. This safety Bill (and its predecessor in
572
1971) came about as a result of Green Papers and White Papers following the reports of Committees. These Committees were careful to point out that 90 per cent. of the manufacturers and traders in this country are very safety-conscious, are perfectly aware of their responsibilities and probably take all the action required under this Bill or under earlier Bills without anybody having to probe them.
However, there is the other 10 per cent. I am sorry that this is rather turning into a Second Reading speech; but many of your Lordships were not present at Second Reading because you were eating. I think it is probably important to widen the issue so that we may see why I object to Lord Airedale's Amendments. The fact of the matter is that in this 10 per cent. or so you get people who will import goods from, say, the Far East which turn out to be faulty. We all know of cases like that. I cannot hastily refer to my notes to give examples, but I do not think that your Lordships will require me to do so.
It is a fact that there are from time to time faulty goods for which special provisions have to be made. Under the 1961 Act there were powers for the Minister or successive Ministers to make regulations, They made only about 18 regulations in the last 17 years, which is not very oppressive extra legislation which needs to be castigated as over-government. It is only about one a year. That gives a measure of the amount of work, so to speak, which results from this Bill. One of the factors made known by the Committee which sat on this, and who reported in 1976, was that they were not satisfied about the 1961 legislation, because there was no obligation on local authorities to assist Government in enforcing these regulations when they come into being. It was strongly recommended by that Committee—and accepted by the Government and by me as being reasonable—that local authorities should be required to provide a back-up to the legislation and the regulations stemming from it.
May we turn now to the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I would hope that the Committee agree with me that we need balance the unscrupulous enforcement officer,—if he exists—with the unscrupulous trader who is probably much more likely

573
to exist; because, with great respect to noble Lords, in my experience, enforcement officers are very scrupulous, on the whole, in how they carry out their duties. If they were not, they would get the sack So I think that we can take that point away. The question is whether or not what the noble Lord calls "fishing expeditions" are wicked. The difficulty is that if you were to add the noble Lord's Amendment—or even, as I thought at one stage he was suggesting to strike out, 3(a) and 3(b) altogether for he questioned whether they were necessary—the difficulty is, where do you start? You really cannot say that a reasonable ground for going into premises is that that you believe the trader to be unscupulous, crooked or whatever. Apart from the fact that you might render yourself liable to being sued for libel, you must have a start point. As the noble Lord said, anybody, if they wish, can go into any premises with somebody's permission. Therefore, why include these clauses to underline what ordinary people can do? To take that out of the way, the reason for having these clauses, is that if they were not there (or if they were there in the form on which the noble Lord's Amendment would make them) they would provide a restraint on the enforcement officers who would not be able to act like ordinary people. So we must have something in the Bill to make sure that the enforcement officers have the authority to do the "fishing expeditions".
Let us return to the "fishing expeditions."! If it is possible for you and I to go into a premises and find some goods being sold which may be unsafe or may not be marked in accordance with Clause 1(2)(f) of the Bill, for example, is it unreasonable if we report this—because we happen to know, for we have studied the Bill; at least today we have—as a contravention of the safety regulations? I would suggest that it is not. Some people do this kind of thing. They may be nosey-parkers, but they are acting within their rights. These things happen around the real world instead of within the confines of this delightful Chamber. If it is not unreasonable for ordinary citizens to make complaints if they think traders are soing something wrong, why is it wrong for enforcement officers to do the same thing?
Furthermore, the power to enter premises
574
other than dwellings and inspect goods provided by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, as at present drafted, is consistent with similar powers in other consumer protection legislation—for example: the Weights and Measures Act 1963, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Fair Trading Act 1973, and the Act to which Lord Airedale has referred, the Consumer Credit Act 1974—neatly blanced between Governments of both major Parties and Parliament has, therefore, on several occasions accepted that it is reasonable and appropriate to provide such powers without any qualification that before exercising them an enforcement officer must have grounds for suspecting the commission of an offence.
I should have thought that the only other important point to make is that this Bill (and the regulations which stem from it) has been welcomed by all Parties in another place and, so far, by all Parties in this House. The principle of it is accepted, I think. If these Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, seeks to put forward were to be implemented, they would seriously undermine the powers which have been incorporated within the Bill—and those powers are really based on the special Committee's report which sat to consider this matter in 1976. This took the form of a Green Paper which I do not have to hand. I would strongly urge your Lordships not to support this Amendment.
12 noon
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before we move away from this Amendment it is important that it should go on the record that the enforcement officers are already understaffed and somewhat overworked, whether we are talking about trading standards officers or shops inspectors, of whom I have some knowledge. There could be no suggestion that they were having to seek work. The burden of their song would be a different one: that there are not enough of them to carry out the laws which we are constantly initiating in both Chambers of Government.
I admire and respect the work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in consumer activities, in searching through the Bill carefully, but traders themselves exercise the right to have test purchases in another connection. They employ firms

575
to make test purchases to see whether employees are ringing up the right amount of money, or indeed are undercharging to a relative. I think that the noble Lord can rest assured that traders—and, as he has said, we are concerned with honest traders—will not resent this. But I think we should search out and deal with the dishonest traders.
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend Lord Mottistone went rather far when he said that if this Amendment is carried it will undermine the whole purpose of the Bill. I do not think that is so. Whether or not it is a good Amendment is another matter, but it does not threaten the Bill itself. I take a rather more sympathetic view of Lord Airedale's Amendment than do the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, or the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. We have to be very careful in granting these powers of search and entry. The Committee will recall the furore that was raised a year or so ago when new powers—or what were said to be new powers—were granted to VAT inspectors and, more recently, to officials of the Inland Revenue Department. The proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, merits a more careful consideration than it has so far received. Even if the noble Lord is not advised to press the Amendment now, he ought to come back to it at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord AIREDALE: I am very much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I will accept that invitation. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. She underlined something which I suggested earlier on. The noble Baroness says, quite rightly, that the enforcement departments of local authorities are understaffed and overworked. I suggested that that was probably the situation. I simply do not believe that they seek these so-called powers in paragraph 3 to make spot checks or "fishing expeditions" without having cause to suspect that something is wrong in those premises. If Lord Mottistone's arithmetic is right, 90 per cent. of the traders are honest and above board, and nothing is wrong. The enforcement officers who go on "fishing expediditions" are going to he wasting a lot of time if 90 per cent. of their time is going to be without any tangible result.
576
We have a situation of nonsense here. It can be put right by the traders circulating to themselves, through their associations, an indication that if they do not want an enforcement officer in their premises, all they have to do is to refuse him entry. Then he is absolutely stuck except that, if he goes to a magistrate and can persuade him that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that something is wrong in those premises, then he gets his search warrant—and he deserves to get it. I am very much in favour of that being the position.
To have a paragraph of a Schedule which does not make clear what the position is, that the enforcement officer's power depends upon his having reasonable cause to suspect, is slightly dishonest. I am sorry to say this, but I think it is slightly dishonest to have a paragraph which does not make it clear that the officer must ultimately only act upon reasonable suspicion. Paragraph 3 is shabby in the way it appears at present and without the words "reasonable cause" being inserted at the beginning of it.
We have not been told by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, why it is that the enforcement officer may not examine the books unless he has reasonable cause to suspect—that is under sub-paragraph (c)—yet he can go in and examine the goods without having reasonable cause to suspect. Perhaps we can develop that on Report stage. In the meantime, I will of course carefully consider what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and other noble Lords have said. But I think we shall be hearing more of this. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
12.6 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 17, after ("a") insert ("secret").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 makes the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of Schedule 2 a criminal offence except in specified circumstances. The disclosure of information for the purpose of proceedings for breach of duty mentioned in Clause 6(1) is permitted but only if there is no disclosure

577
of a manufacturing process or a trade secret. It is important that in proceedings the court should have all information relevant to the issue. It is thought that there is no justification for withholding from the court information about manufacturing processes which are not secret. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 22, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("or in compliance with a direction under section 5(3A) of this Act or was of publicised information.").
The noble Lord said: We discussed this Amendment last night with Amendments Nos. 11 and 14. In discussion on Amendment No. 14, the noble Lord, Lord Lye11—and we appreciate he is prevented from being in his place today because of an official engagement—asked a question. This is reported in columns 480 and 481 of Hansard. He wondered whether I would be able to tell him whether there had been any problem with the existing disclosures which I was mentioning under the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act. At that time the communications system was not rapid enough for me to reply when I reached Clause 14. Therefore I make this reply now for it to be reported in Hansard in order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, personally, and I think your Lordships will approve of this.
The answer is that the Government are not aware of any difficulties of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, having arisen in regard to reports by local authorities under the present informal arrangements regarding the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act. No difficulties of this nature are expected in connection with reports by enforcement authorities under similar arrangements expected in connection with the Consumer Safety Bill.
That is the statement that I should like to be reported in Hansard. Apart from that, I formally move the Amendment as we have already previously discussed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
In the Title
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 39:
Line 2, at end insert ("and others").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 39 was taken with No. 24, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Trustee Savings Banks Act,

Internationally Protected Persons Act,

Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act,

Oaths Act,

Tuvalu Act,

Co-operative Development Agency Act,

Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act,

Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act,

Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act,

Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act,

Suppression of Terrorism Act,

Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act,

Union Theological College of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland Act, Abingdon Market Place Act,

Mile End Gardens (Portsmouth) Act,

Commons Registration (Cardiganshire) Act,

Christ Church Woburn Square and Saint Matthew Oakley Square Act,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
12.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Loans and grants for establishing common ownership and co-operative enterprises]:
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("or
(c) subsections (4) to (7) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name to Clause 3, which is the clause that deals with loans and grants for establishing common ownership and co-operative enterprises. I will not rehearse again at length the arguments I tried to put before your Lordships during the Committee stage. However, although I have had helpful correspondence about this from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I feel that I should give the matter another airing at this stage, because in my Amendment I have in mind what I believe to be a very important and growing need in inner urban areas; namely, the opportunity of giving assistance for starting up commercial premises associations—in other words, associations dealing with mixed developments of commercial and residential properties, which are not covered by the kinds of organisation referred to in the clause.
I find it somewhat depressing that specific proposals for assistance of this kind for those who are trying to keep alive those properties in inner urban areas where there is mixed residential and commercial use, have not been considered worthy of inclusion in this Bill. I think that many of us regret very much the almost complete absence from many inner urban areas of any residential life at all and the fact that the centres of many of our big cities die almost completely when the offices close at 5.30 or 6 o'clock. Attempts have been made, as your Lordships will know, to do something about this: they have been particularly successful in the Barbican area. It seems to me that we need encouragement of organisations such as commercial premises associations to do just this. It cannot be done by housing corporations and it is not being done privately, because the covenants offered by this kind of organisation are not sufficiently impressive for commercial organisations.
I feel I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this, although it is a newish concept, is not a "crank" idea or something that has just been thought up on the spur of the moment. The concept of commercial premises associations has the support of the National Federation of Housing Associations, of Shelter, of the Civic Trust and of many other organisations of that level of importance, and as established as that.
I am aware, from the correspondence I have received from the noble Baroness, that the Government are generally sympathetic to the concept I have outlined briefly; but I must underline once again that the fear that by including this kind of organisation in the categories there would be a rush of other worthy organisations through the floodgates, is an exaggeration. For that reason, my Amendment has been worded so tightly that it does not permit of extensions. It has been worded very closely indeed, so that only a strict interpretation is possible, as I think your Lordships will see, as to what comprises a commercial premises association.
Finally, I would draw to your Lordships' attention that the power proposed in my Amendment is in any event a discretionary and not a mandatory power. Local authorities would retain their right to refuse to help commercial premises associations if they did not think that they were suitable. Therefore I hope, realising that the Government are sympathetic, that they might be able to express their sympathy in some perhaps more positive way than they have so far felt able to do. I beg to move.
12.17 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, as I promised your Lordships during the Committee stage, I have given further consideration to whether it would be appropriate in this Bill to include the commercial premises associations. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has pointed out, I have written to him about it. I still remain of the opinion that the clause should not be extended in the way the Amendment suggests. I did go into it in some considerable detail at Committee stage and therefore, like him,

581
I shall not take up time by rehearsing all the arguments again.
I certainly accept that financial help towards the cost of setting up would be useful to commercial premises associations, but again it would be equally useful to all sorts of other bodies that may wish to take initiatives in the inner cities; and the noble Lord just now, in moving his Amendment, referred to other organisations, but said:
"such as the commercial premises associations."
The Amendment is concerned with commercial premises associations, and what the noble Lord is asking is that in a clause of a Bill which deals with common ownership and co-operative entreprises, this should be put in specifically as an association. I think this is where the problem appears. It is not a question of not having sympathy or the fear of other organisations coming in in the future; but what the noble Lord is asking is about an Act of Parliament, as we hope this Bill will become; that this should be added in a clause of a Bill which, quite specifically, is dealing with common ownership and co-operative enterprises in a fairly wide way.
In addition, I have to repeat that I cannot accept that we should single out in this Bill and in this way, for a specific provision, one novel and, as I explained to him in some detail, as yet unproven form of organisation. In fact, the objects of commercial premises associations, as set out in the Amendment, and also in the correspondence I have had from the noble Lord, are, I find, imprecise. They suggest that the supporters of this type of body, although the motivations and objectives may be very good, are not themselves, I believe, so far entirely sure of the role they should play, certainly in the specific form in which it should be included in legislation. For instance, the objects, as expressed in the proposed subsection (4)(a), make no reference at all to the provision of premises. It is much better that local authorities should assist any type of organisation that seems appropriate to them, and they have powers to do this. They can do this under their general powers, and this would provide a much more flexible approach than inserting a particular form of organisation into this clause.
582
Finally, the commercial premises association will, of course, be eligible for all the grants and loans in the Inner Urban Areas Bill, if they undertake appropriate projects in the designated districts or the special areas. We have had a fairly good discussion on this point at two stages of this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, realising that there are alternative opportunities for dealing with the objective which he has in mind, will now withdraw his Amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I do not apologise for raising the matter again. I think that it is of considerable importance and concern to inner urban areas, and those people who are trying to get organisations of this kind off the ground because they have a great potential. The discussion has been quite valuable and, I hope, encouraging to people involved in this kind of matter, and I trust that they are now aware of the opportunities available to them to seek finance in the way that the noble Baroness mentioned just now, and also very kindly mentioned in her letter to me.
I apologise for not having replied to her letter but, unfortunately, for some reason unknown, it was addressed to me in another place, of which I have never been, I am sorry to say—or perhaps pleased to say—a Member. I have only very recently had the letter and that is why I did not reply to her. But in view of what she has said, and also in view of her very helpful letter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Declaration of and changes in industrial improvement areas]:
12.23 p.m.
Lord PLANT Lord PLANT moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("or commercial improvement areas.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I associate with it, because they are precisely the same, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 28. The wording is precisely the same, as is the intention. This Amendment has been introduced in order to empower local authorities, in particular—

583
the non-partnership authorities—to promote the improvement and regeneration of run-down commercial areas within the designated districts. As the Bill stands, the power to provide grants for improving amenities, and for improving or converting industrial or commercial buildings, will apply only in industrial improvement areas which, by definition, exclude commercial areas. Yet there must be many inner city commercial areas where these provisions, in addition to the existing powers of local authorities to improve amenities themselves, would be extremely beneficial in making them more attractive to both existing and new firms.
The Amendment is in keeping with the White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities, which states:
"The development of services and office employment in the centre of cities and in the inner areas themselves will help to provide employment"—
obviously, employment to residents of the inner cities. However, apart from the changes in the operation of ODP policy, and in the Location of Office Bureau's role, there were, unfortunately, no suggestions in the White Paper as to how commercial employment could be encouraged in the inner cities particularly by local authorities. This preoccupation with employment in manufacturing establishments and with industrial areas, which is carried through into this Bill, appears to have arisen for the following reasons, and I shall just give your Lordships four reasons which I believe are behind this intention.
First, it seems to be thought that the decline of commercial areas in the inner cities is a direct and inevitable response to the reduction in population of those areas, and that intervention is futile. Assuming the diagnosis to be correct, I think that some attempt should be made, using the provisions of the Bill, to stem this decline or, at the very least, to ameliorate its physical and psychological effects in the form of derelict and run-down premises and a lack of confidence in such areas. More importantly, the diagnosis that the amount of commercial employment is related directly to the population of an area is only partly true. There are some commercial establishments, and, in particular, many offices, which, like manufacturing establishments, are not in existence
584
to serve the population immediately surrounding them, and are therefore relatively mobile. It is this type of commercial establishment that local authorities need to be able to encourage to stay in, or to move to, their areas and which this Amendment would help.
Secondly, it is assumed that commercial establishments, and in particular offices, do not provide any, or enough, suitable employment for the residents of inner city areas, particularly those who are unemployed as a result of the decline in the number of jobs in factories. Yet there is no doubt that, directly or indirectly, commercial establishments will provide some suitable employment; for example, offices generate local demands for electricians, cleaners, catering staff, et cetera. Only the amount provided is in doubt. Surely some extra employment is better than none.
Thirdly, there is the associated view that there are enough jobs in the centres of conurbations and major towns for inner city residents who wish to work in offices, shops or other commercial establishments. This is patently only true in London, particularly so far as offices are concerned. Why, otherwise, do the partnership and programme areas cover the main centres of the metropolitan counties and not central London? Yet even in central London, with its thriving commercial centre, there would be benefits in encouraging commerce in local centres of the surrounding inner area. For example, more married women, unable to travel to work in central London, would be able to take up employment in local centres, thus increasing the household income of inner London residents.
Finally, the fourth reason why there has been preoccupation with employment in manufacturing establishments, is, I believe, that any commercial property development that is needed in inner areas will be carried out by the private sector. Yet in the majority of the designated districts, the property market has not favoured commercial property development in inner city locations. The possible exceptions relate to office development in the central areas of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and on the boundary of central inner London. The local centres of inner London, the inner areas around the centres of Birming

585
ham, Liverpool, Manchester and the centres of most other designated districts, are not favoured locations for commercial development.
The relative importance of the individual powers that would be available in commercial improvement areas, as a result of this Amendment and the other Amendments that I have mentioned, would obviously vary from one location to another. In some, the emphasis might be on providing grants for the landscaping of vacant sites in association with new development; in others, on the conversion of derelict warehouses and factories to offices; in others, again, on the improvement of existing shops and offices. All the provisions of the amended Bill could be instrumental in improving confidence in the run-down commercial areas of the inner cities, and therefore, one hopes, in increasing employment and opportunities in them. This will not happen without intervention by the Government. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, out of a sense of loyalty, as much as anything else, I have pleasure in supporting what I consider to be a constructive Amendment to this Bill, which may be of use. Commercial improvement is necessary in much of the inner cities. I can give concrete examples, although I shall not bore the House with them. But inner cities are sometimes made derelict because of the high prices of office accommodation. Small commercial enterprises are finding themselves overburdened with the high cost of rent. I had better not name areas, but I could give the example of a small firm whose rent for a small office of two rooms and a half, not very far from the centre of a city was £6,000 a year, plus rates. That cost could not be borne by the entrepreneur of that legitimate commercial enterprise. In any case, high land values and high rents have helped to create deserts of concrete in some of these inner commercial areas. I believe, therefore, that a constructive objective lies behind this Amendment, and it gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend. I shall listen with arrested attention to the answer of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to speak to
586
this Amendment in respect of small businesses and small commercial enterprises. In the area in which your Lordships' House is situated I understand that it is extraordinarily difficult to find a plumber, or an electrician, or a garage. I know of one small garage in Vauxhall Bridge Road which is having to move out of this area because the lease is up and it cannot find alternative accommodation. In the area in which your Lordships' House is situated it is almost impossible for inhabitants to obtain services, not because the plumber or the small commercial enterprise does not want to be in this area but because (a) they cannot get land and (b) they cannot pay for that land, even if they can obtain it.
12.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is an extremely interesting series of Amendments. I sympathise with their aim, in that they are trying to encourage the growth of office employment in inner cities. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend stressed the need for all forms of employment in inner city areas, and the changes which have been made to the Bill have, in the main, widened its scope to include all forms of commercial property. Therefore, the Bill is wider in that sense than it was when it was originally drafted. At the same time, I question the need for commercial improvement areas and the practical effect of this Amendment.
Because of the resources available, we have to remember that the scope of the Bill must be fairly limited. The further one expands it, the thinner the butter will be spread on the industrial or commercial bread. The commercial property market is, in general, better developed and more active than the industrial property market. Also, it is quite normal for offices to be modernised and improved during the course of their useful lives. Although the conversion of large factory buildings for use by a number of small firms is comparatively new and certainly needs to be greatly encouraged, it is a completely different kind of operation from that of modernising an office building.
It is much easier, I believe, for commercial firms to assess the likely costs and the viability of a conversion project

587
than it is for industrial firms to carry out the same exercise. The commercial property market can more easily adapt itself to the level of costs and rentals involved. It is true that some of the older office areas may not be very attractive, but the major action which can be taken to improve the environment in these streets—for instance, by re-laying pavements and planting a few trees—already lies within the power of local authorities and would not necessarily be carried out by private firms, anyway. The grants for cleaning buildings will be useful, and they are there. However, I cannot see that any of the provisions in this part of the Bill are particularly relevant to commercial areas. On that basis, therefore, it seems to me to be preferable to leave local authorities to use their general expenditure powers to make such grants selectively, as they think fit.
Again may I emphasise that the principal environmental eyesores in inner cities are those associated with industrial areas. This does not mean that everything is perfect and that things do not need to be done in commercial areas. However, because of a very strict order of priorities we believe that it is in the industrial areas that we need to concentrate our initial efforts—if we may keep it in that context—
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, could I—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence—and try to stabilise employment there. It is in the industrial areas where employment is tending to decline, and we should concentrate our resources there before we turn our attention to the commercial sector which, on the whole, is faring rather better.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. May I ask her whether she is right in trying to resist this change in the measure, for these reasons: If the noble Baroness looks at Clause 6(2)(b), she will see that specific provision is made there for the conversion of other buildings—often for the conversion of factories and warehouses concerned with industrial activities into commercial buildings, for the very reason
588
which the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is urging upon us. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that the purpose of providing commercial buildings is not within the compass of the Bill, because there it is in black and white.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Plant is both enlarging the powers and also specifying them more clearly. I have already said that these opportunities are already provided for in the Bill and also in other powers which local authorities have. However, what my noble friend is attempting to do in his Amendments—which I appreciate and sympathise with—is to equate the help given to commercial enterprises with that given to industrial enterprises. All I am saying is that in the present situation, and having regard to what needs to be done in inner areas, we believe that in the first place we should concentrate on the industrial side. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made supports rather than takes away from the case that I am putting forward.
In conclusion, therefore, I must repeat my doubts about both the need and the practical effect of these Amendments. While sympathising with the general thinking which lies behind the Amendments—there is nothing with which one could disagree—I would ask my noble friend to withdraw them.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I find it difficult to withdraw these Amendments, because I have not been convinced by my noble friend's explanation. If it is possible for some help to be given to commercial operations and offices, what is the objection to that help being written into the Bill in the places which I have specified? My noble friend does not disagree with my objectives. If my assumption is correct, I fail to see why my noble friend cannot accept the Amendments.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give way so that I may answer that point. The Bill covers help to commercil enterprises which are situated in industrial areas, but it does not cover help to commercial enterprises which are situated in residential or solely commercial areas. I do not intend to go over the ground again. It is the concentration on industrial areas and

589
the situation of commercial enterprises within industrial areas that results in this differentatiation.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for the explanation which has been given by the noble Baroness, but I think she must recognise that we all feel considerable sympathy for the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. In a sense, it is a great misfortune that this point is being debated on Report rather than during the Committee stage, because we can speak only once.
I believe that the first debate that we had in Committee, which was the interpretation of the Long Title of the Bill, was relevant. There were those of us who thought that the definition of "social need" implied something which, as is proving to be the case, simply is not true. The Bill is not about social need; it is in fact about industry, very narrowly defined because the money is limited and it can only be spent on specific objectives. I think the noble Baroness herself has recognised in what she has said that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, is a valid one, and she is saying that the Bill defines "commercial premises" very narrowly as being commercial premises within an industrial area, as defined in the Bill, and not commercial premises anywhere else in an inner urban area, no matter how derelict or run-down that area may be.
The only valid argument which has been raised here is one simply of cost, and what I think the noble Baroness is saying is that the long and the short of it is that there is so little money with which to do anything at all that we must simply concentrate on the industrial buildings and not extend the Bill in any direction at all. That is a terrible reflection on the state of our economy and our life today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has rightly said—and he adduced four very good arguments for his linked series of Amendments—the regeneration of commercial premises does an enormous amount of good for inner city life. I do not know what the noble Lord is contemplating doing with regard to this Amendment but before we decide on this I think it would be helpful to know exactly how there might be regeneration of commercial premises in inner city areas which are not covered by the industrial improvement areas of this Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might say something on this matter. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. It is true that this did not come up at Committee stage and it was not even discussed in another place. I should like to take it back to consider the points that have been made, without making any commitment on behalf of the Government, because I think it deserves more consideration that I can give it at this moment.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, I must point out to the House that, if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 5.
12.42 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The powers of a designated district authority under sections 5 and 6 of this Act may be exercised in an industrial improvement area by both the council of the district which includes that area and the council of the county or region which includes that district.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I should like to speak also to Amendments 17, 25, 26 and 27, all of which are consequential. This is an Amendment for clarification and to avoid any duplication between counties and districts. I tabled it in order to get on the record an answer from the Government on what I think is a rather technical point but one which I consider needs to be clarified. By Clause 4 and the Schedule to this Bill an industrial improvement area can be declared to be such by a designated district authority. For example, if one takes London as a case in point, it can be either by the Greater London Council or the appropriate London borough council. The declaration is to be made by the passing of an appropriate resolution by the authority after consultation with the other designated district authority. The resolution under the Act must specify the date on which it is to take effect and the notice must be pub

591
lished, indicating its effect and naming the places covered by the resolution, and a map of the area to which it relates may be inspected.
The effect of Clause 4 and that of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 can only be exercised by the designated district authority which actually declares the industrial improvement area. So that in the case which I have cited—that is, if both the Greater London Council and a London borough council wish to have the powers of Clauses 4 and 5 in relation to a particular area—then both authorities must, as they are entitled to do under the Bill, go through the resolution, advertising and notification procedures. This seems to be a duplication of effort and expenditure which does not seem to confer any advantage on anybody and has all the appearances of being duplication and a further unnecessary round of bureaucracy. If I am right in these arguments, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could consider this point and see whether there is any opportunity to simplify the procedures and to enable the authorities to do what each would like to do and what we are all agreed ought to be done, without any duplication of effort. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in the first place, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that anything we can do to simplify arrangements for implementing the powers in the Bill would be extremely welcome. However, I do not think that the essential philosophy of the improvement area approach lends itself to what she is suggesting. Also I think she is overstating the complexity of the present arrangements, certainly those in this Bill.
It is essential to the success of the industrial improvement area that the local authority should make a clear and public declaration of its intention to become involved in the revival of the area. This is not just a question of obtaining or confirming the new powers provided in this Bill, but of a particular authority looking at the whole range of needs in the areas and the way in which that authority can help. We shall encourage both tiers of local government to co-operate over all the IIAs since both have general powers the use of which will affect the area. If both tiers wish to become fully involved in the area and to make loans and grants, then
592
both should make that clear by passing a resolution and publicising the fact.
We must remember the public and the applicants who are on the other side of the fence in this matter. Otherwise the public would have no means of knowing that the non-declaring authority had any positive interest in the area. There is no need for duplication of effort since the authorities can jointly undertake surveys, prepare plans and issue advertisements, and we shall be happy for them to send joint notification of the area to us, if they agree it between themselves. There are also sound practical reasons for each authority having to make its own particular involvement clear. If it did not do so, how could its officers approve any applications for loans and grants? Powers must be sought consciously by the authority rather than granted to it accidentally by the action of another, which would seem to me to open the way for complicated muddles and mistakes.
The last of the proposed Amendments indicates the complications that might arise when it comes to terminating an IIA. The non-declaring authority should obviously be consulted, but if it did not agree to the termination the IIA would be formally in existence even though neither authority intended to take any action. I can understand the motivation behind this Amendment, but I can assure the noble Baroness that after having given it considerable thought I have decided that it would complicate rather than simplify, and could result in great confusion and also difficulty and indeed unfairness to the public. Therefore, I believe it is right for each authority to make a separate public declaration about the extent of its involvement, and as the noble Baroness indicated that she was seeking to clarify the situation, I take it that she does not intend to press this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation as to why she cannot accept this series of linked Amendments. As I indicated at the beginning, this is not a matter which I wish to press, although having listened to some of the arguments I find it difficult to believe that the proposed procedures will make the matter very clear to the public, and I think it will involve quite a lot of duplication. We are, of course,

593
all agreed that people must know what is going on and it is vitally necessary to go through the correct notification and abvertising procedures, but two authorities undertaking surveys and two authorities publishing notices each dealing with bits and pieces of it seems to me to make for confusion rather than clarification. However, as I have indicated, it is not a matter I wish to press. I will read with interest what the noble Baroness has said, and, if necessary, I will write to her further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Loans and grants for improving amentities]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
12.51 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("() the cleansing or reclamation of wharves or docks;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 standing in my name. In addition to considering this Amendment, I should like to talk generally about Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I have tried to rephrase and divide an omnibus Amendment which I moved to the old Clause 4 when we considered it in Committee. I realised that there had been a misunderstanding between the noble Baroness and myself, and indeed I think many noble Lords were not clear about my intentions. I hope that by splitting the omnibus Amendment which I moved, to bring into the powers of what is now Clause 5, "loans and grants for improving amenities", into the "cleansing or reclamation of wharves and docks", "railway sidings", and then, separately, "shelters for users of public transport", I might be able to persuade the Government that an extension of the categories in this way would not in any way diminish the effectiveness of the clause, nor would it have the effect which the noble Baroness mentioned earlier of spreading the butter too thin.
I think it is true to say that in many inner urban areas the most important way in which one can improve amenities,
594
particularly in the ports, is by making available loans or grants for doing something about the dereliction in wharves and docks; of course, generally, not just in ports, but particularly in ports because of the fact that many railways which served the ports have now been abandoned. So particularly in ports, and inner urban areas which had old ports as their main previous purpose for existence, the existence of wharves and docks and railway sidings causes perhaps the most serious dereliction and general amenity problems.
I am thinking in particular of the advance in containerisation that has taken place. Much of the main business of ports such as the Mersey is conducted at the estuary, with a container port right at the estuary; therefore, there is almost no use at all made of the South docks in the Mersey, up the river. From articles I have read in The Times and other newspapers, I gather the same problem exists in the upper reaches, or some parts, of the Thames and the Tyne. You will find that whole areas that were previously busy as docks or wharves are now virtually derelict; they present a very unpleasant appearance, and could, with the expenditure of a little money in the form of loans or grants, be made to look attractive, be made to help the inner environment to a very considerable extent.
It may be that the noble Baroness may be able to persuade me that these specific additions I seek to make—namely, railway sidings, wharves and docks (railways sidings are, I might add, defined in the Railways Act 1974)—are in fact included in the categories set out in subsection (2) of Clause 5; namely, "the cleansing of watercourses, whether natural or artificial, or the reclamation of land covered with water", and "cleaning or demolition of structures or buildings." But I would need to be reassured of this, because, quite frankly, a very large part of the effectiveness of what this clause seeks to do would be rendered nugatory if loans and grants could not be made for the purpose of improving the appearance of docks, wharves and railway sidings.
I do not seek the construction of new railways sidings. I think that was another misunderstanding between the noble Baroness and myself, from the letter I have had. I seek loans and grants for improving the appearance, for amenity

595
treatment. If she can perusade me that this is already incorporated in Clause 5, then fine. If she cannot persuade me, I think it would not do anything to weaken or emasculate the Bill if she were to agree on behalf of the Government that these particular matters could be included.
If it is any comfort to the Government, the one Amendment of the three that I would not press very hard—because I have been convinced by the letter the noble Baroness sent to me—is No. 9; that is, "shelters for users of public transport." I could not press that as far as I would press the others. So far as the cleansing and reclamation of wharves and docks is concerned (Amendment No. 7) and railways sidings (Amendment No. 8), I think anyone who has experience of inner urban areas, particularly seaports, would realise how terribly important it is that loans and grants should be available to deal with these areas. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the purpose behind this revised version of the Amendment we discussed during Committee. I shall follow his lead and speak to all three, taking them each separately but dealing with them altogether. Taking the first one, the docks and wharves. I think this Amendment is really unnecessary, because docks and wharves are certainly structures, and therefore their cleaning already falls within the provisions of the subsection. Similarly, the phrase "land covered by water" includes docks, and so they are again included in this subsection. So I hope that on that Amendment the noble Lord will accept my assurance that what he is seeking, and quite rightly seeking, is already provided for by this power, and therefore his Amendment is unnecessary. It is actually covered in the Bill. That is Amendment No. 7.
On Amendment No. 8, railway sidings, by clarifying through correspondence what he meant, the noble Lord has been a great help. The idea that assistance should be given for cleaning railway sidings seems slightly strange and I was not sure how one would set about demolishing one. Now I am quite clear that it is not a question of assistance for construction, which would rather put it outside the Bill; if, as I understand now, following what
596
the noble Lord has said today, what he is suggesting is that removal of redundant sidings and the re-use or landscaping of the site might improve the environment, then I am sure that he is right, and I will be happy to consider whether we can bring forward an appropriate Amendment to do this.
On Amendment No. 9 the noble Lord kindly helped me by saying that that was the one that he would not press very hard. I think he is quite right not to do so, because bus shelters are in fact normally erected by local authorities; sometime they are erected by the public transport authority, which is usually closely related to the local authority and might even be an arm of it. So there really does not seem much point in having a provision for money to be transferred from one pocket of local government to another, especially for a very restricted purpose when there are much more general provisions for local authority finance for public transport services. I am aware that this financial procedure goes on both locally and centrally; but in this particular case it seems to me to be rather gilding the lily and adding an unnecessary addition to paper work and bureaucracy, which I think, on the whole, the House would rather reduce than increase. Therefore, following the noble Lord's own line, I hope he will not press that. The railway sidings matter, as I have said, I am happy to have a look at to see whether we can produce an Amendment. As regards the first one, I assure the noble Lord that the matter is already covered.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness for her reply and I am delighted to know—and I am certain that many people outside the House in the type of areas that I have mentioned will be glad to be reassured—that docks and wharves are included in the areas where loans and grants can be made. Therefore, I shall seek to withdraw Amendment No. 7. I shall not pursue Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, but, before I leave the matter, I should like to mention that my concern about shelters for users of public transport was mainly brought about by the fact that many passenger transport authorities, in order to save money no doubt, provide bus shelters through the medium of advertisers. The tendency is that advertisers, instead of putting bus shelters

597
where they are needed, put them where they think the kind of people who buy their wares are most likely to be waiting. That is what lies behind the Amendment. Passenger transport authorities should be more concerned about the people who use the transport and less concerned about whether the shelters will bring in advertising revenue. However, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert ("and the maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths whether they he adopted highways or not")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 are like Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, in. that they are all aimed to produce a debate on the elements which were either indicated as being required by the inner area studies; or envisaged in the White Paper, Policy for Inner Cities; or shown by the pioneering Rochdale to be desirable; or incorporated in the Tyne and Wear Bill; or deserve to be considered because the AMA says that it needs them, or because as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has just shown, there is a special need which has not so far been identified. The Amendments between them cover the matters to which I have referred, but Her Majesty's Government seem to have left them out. I think that the House would like to know why they have been left out and if they are not happy with that to try and ensure that they are included before the Bill leaves us.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for writing to me about these Amendments which I tabled at an earlier stage, but which we did not discuss. In answer to me she made three points which have been seen by some noble Lords, but not be everyone who is taking part in this debate. First, she makes the point that if we grant powers which are too extensive or too widely used, they would distort regional policy. Secondly. she says that they are powers which are such that they would reduce the distinction between the partnership and programme areas, on the one hand, and the rest of the local authorities, on the other. Thirdly, she says,
598
that they should be directed towards improving areas and not towards subsidising industries' normal costs for purchasing plant and machinery. In so far as I had put down Amendments upon which that last criticism bore, I have not pursued them.
However, I must say that I find the first two arguments which the noble Baroness put forward most unconvincing and for three main reasons. First, I do not think that it can be claimed that there is any danger of regional policy being distorted. because the Secretary of State himself controls the designation of the designated areas under Clause 1. Secondly, he also has the power to control the size and designation of the industrial improvement areas—paragraph 2 of the Schedule—so that is entirely within his control. Thirdly, on top of both of those factors, the whole operation of the Bill is subject to the arrangements as described in Clause 7. Therefore, there is no question of opening the sluicegates to things which will upset regional policy and so forth.
The noble Baroness went on in her letter to say that there may be a case for local authorities generally to have these greater powers that have been pioneered by Rochdale and secured by Tyne and Wear in their Private Bill. She says that Her Majesty's Government are ready to consider suggestions from the associations for greater power. The Amendments that I have tabled all come from the associations. They come mainly directly from the AMA which is the association chiefly concerned. The noble Baroness then went on to say that this is not a suitable Bill for them. I should like to ask the House to agree with me that this is an eminently suitable Bill for the use of these powers and for testing them in a limited manner entirely under the control of the Secretary of State, before any question arises of considering them for general application, which she admits is a possibility. Those are all general points which apply to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13.
I should now like to come specifically to Amendment No. 10 which deals with
"the maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths whether they be adopted highways or not".
The Government White Paper (Cmnd (6845) at paragraph 54(b) specifically mentions:

599
"…Designing a Bill which will assist owners to carry out improvements to access ".
Certainly the Rochdale experience in Crawford Street reinforces the need for special powers to assist in the improvement of access. However, under Clause 5(2)(e) the Bill provides for grants and loan towards the construction of access roads. I cannot for the life of me see why on earth Her Majesty's Government have changed their minds and have ruled out of court the far less expensive and often more desirable, from an environmental point of view, possibility of giving aid and assistance for improving existing roads and have only allowed for the possibility of constructing new ones. In my view that is quite inappropriate and far too inflexible for an industrial improvement area.
In her letter on this point the noble Baroness says that it is not appropriate to have this included because it is part of the regular routine work of the highway authorities to improve and maintain their roads. That may be so, but there are other items which are also routine. Clause 5(2)(c) mentions the cleansing of watercourses and Clause 5(2)(e) mentions the construction of parking spaces and so on. They also are routine matters, but they are included. Therefore, why not include this matter? Furthermore, while we are about it, we need all the flexibility that we can possibly have in an industrial improvement area, so why do we not provide for it to be possible to give assistance as regards roads which are not under the normal responsibility of the highway authorities because they are private roads belonging to some other authority? I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if I have understood him correctly, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to be speaking to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 together. I should like to make a few comments on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. As regards Amendment No. 10, although I have some sympathy with this Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered the possibility that the Amendment could provide a way of enabling pressure to be put on local authorities to work on roads which have not been adopted when, in fact, that ought to be the responsibility of the owners of those unadopted roads to do it
600
for themselves. In other words, it could provide a loophole enabling people to get out of their responsibility, if I may put it that way, and try to pass it smartly on to the local authority. Of course, the responsibility to which I am referring is that of making up, and finally getting adopted, the unadopted roads. I wonder whether the noble Lord has not gone too far and may be amending a major Act of Parliament, as regards the adoption of roads, by slight of hand. However, I am anxious to hear the comments of my noble friend on this matter, but I sense some danger in what the noble Lord is proposing.
As regards Amendment No. 11, may I say how grateful I was to my noble friend for kindly writing to me about the remarks that I made during the Committee stage. However, she did not convince me in her letter about the issues behind Amendment No. 11. I think it is an omission in Clause 5(2) that there are no powers for what is virtually the restoration of buildings. That subsection is all about the construction of fencing or walls, landscaping, cleansing, cleaning or demolition and the construction of parking spaces, which are all very useful amenity improvements. But as I said in Committee, there are redundant buildings—which may not attract a grant in any other way and which may not be suitable for loan in any other way—that may be very useful for amenity purposes. I instanced redundant churches. Equally well, I could have instanced redundant factories.
They do not really come under Clause 6, because that deals with grants for improving them for commercial or industrial use. However, in many cases we have voluntary trusts and groups of local people who will gladly take on some redundant building and adapt it for community purposes. Some such buildings are part of our industrial landscape. They may not be good enough to attract grants as historic buildings, but they are certainly worth preserving and they add to the scene of industrial areas. In many cases I should be very sorry to see them go simply by demolition when there might be the possibility of having them restored, adapted and brought into use—particularly by voluntary groups—for amenity purposes. Therefore, I would strongly press my noble friend to accept Amendment No. 11. It contains a very useful additional

601
power to add to Clause 5, and I hope very much that she will feel able to accept it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made some general statements and then went on to deal with the specific Amendments. He was kind enough to quote very fully from my letter to him, which covers a number of the general points in the context that we are discussing. Therefore, I shall speak specifically to the Amendments. Amendment No. 10 deals with maintenance and improvement of roads and footpaths. I must repeat that the purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill is not to subsidise the operating costs of firms within the industrial improvement area, but to encourage and assist with permanent improvements to the fabric and amenities of the area. The maintenance of unadopted roads and footpaths clearly falls outside the aim of the present clause.
I think that there is something in what my noble friend Lord Northfield said—I appreciate that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—about the danger of this acting as a very strong disincentive to people to undertake what they should undertake and to pass it on to be looked after in the field of public expenditure. I think that my noble friend covered that point extremely well. Therefore, as a matter of routine I think it would be wrong for a local authority to subsidise a firm's operating costs. Clearly, the maintenance of its premises and the surrounding area constitutes legitimate operating costs. As for the adopted roads and footpaths, which he mentions in his Amendment, they are already the responsibility of the local authority, and in fact do not need to be covered again. Improvements to roads and footpaths, as opposed to maintenance, can often be grant-aided under subsections (2)(e) or (b) as appropriate. As I think I pointed out during the Committee stage or certainly in my letters to noble Lords, landscaping might well include diverting or improving a footpath. The constituent parts of these Amendments, therefore, are either unnecessary or contrary to the principle of this fairly circumscribed Bill—which it had to be in order to do the job it set out to do. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept that.
602
Amendment No. 11 refers to the exterior repair or painting of buildings. Painting and exterior repairs are regarded as routine maintenance, and therefore fall outside the scope of this clause. If repairs are carried out in the course of improving or converting a building, they could be grant-aided under Clause 6. Again, the purpose of this clause is not to subsidise the operating costs of firms. I am sorry to keep repeating this, but I have to do so in order that we are absolutely sure for what purposes the monies available under the Bill can and should be used.
I certainly accept that the external appearance of a building will have a great influence on the overall quality of the environment, but so will many other things which it is quite impossible to cover in the expenditure available. But it is certainly the proper function of any firm to keep its premises in good repair and that includes regular painting. My noble friend Lord Northfield went rather wide when he spoke about the conversion of warehouses which may not be eligible for a grant under the historic building legislation. In that case more than just painting or repairing the outside would be involved; probably a very large construction job and a complete rehabilitation job would be required. This would either come under powers which are to be found in other legislation or under Clause 6 of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I did not understand her when she has twice said that this could be covered by Clause 6. As I read Clause 6—and I hope she will correct me if I am wrong—I thought it covered industrial and commercial buildings intended for, or already being used for, commercial or industrial purposes. My whole point concerns when they are going to be converted for amenity use, and I do not think that that point is covered by Clause 6.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as I have said, I am talking in the context of their conversion and use for industrial purposes. As I pointed out in my letter to my noble friend, in the Bill we are concerned with industrial use, which—in spite of what the noble Baroness keeps saying—certainly has its social connotation; because if a

603
warehouse or building is made fit for industrial use, it not only fulfils an industrial purpose but certainly adds to the social environment because it is in use, is in good repair, looks very much better and adds to the quality of life of the locality as opposed to something that is not made fit.
I find this very difficult, but my own personal sympathy will always be to extend things to cover amenity areas. But we are dealing with a Bill which is revitalising and encouraging industrialisation in the inner areas. The fact that it is important that the environmental concept and an environmental dimension should come with it is different from saying that one should be using this particular money for converting any of these structures for purely amenity purposes.
The Amendment refers to regular painting and ties that up with the fact that the clause covers cleaning. We distinguish this from cleaning, which can be a major task and one which is not always normally regarded as essential to maintaining the fabric of a building in a sound condition, but which both improves the look of the building and does not affect the fact that the building is being converted or used for industrial use. It is for that reason that cleaning is included in grants under Clause 5 and so improves both the industrial and the environmental areas. I really cannot see why a local authority should, as a regular matter, assist in the external repair and painting of an industrial or commercial premises. It is for that reason that, unfortunately, I must resist this Amendment as well.
Then we come to the last Amendment, No. 13, which deals with the preparing or improving of sites or the extension of existing buildings. This Amendment would extend in a singificant way the scope of a grant of up to £1,000 for every job preserved or created in an industrial improvement area. All the way through the Bill, despite what the noble Lord said, we are careful to distinguish between the partnership areas, which are those in most urgent need of financial help, and the other designated areas.
It would allow such grants to be given for site preparation works for new industrial or commercial buildings, and we do
604
not see the industrial improvement areas as areas where there will he construction of new industrial or commercial buildings on a large scale. Rather we see in them that the emphasis will be on the retention and re-use of existing buildings. The relevance of this proposal to the grant-aided site preparation cost is doubtful, but it would be wrong to include the Amendment in the Bill for another reason. The Bill carefully gives to partnership areas which have the most severe problems—and which I have already mentioned—and the greatest need, the greatest powers to assist industry. Among these extra powers for the partnership areas are those of Clause 9 which w ill allow interest-free loans to be given for site preparation purposes. This Amendment would cut across that careful gradation of powers and would be contrary to the whole approach of the Bill.
This resistance to these Amendments is not on the basis that these are not worthy things to be done. However, within a Bill of this kind one could go on for ever including, extending, and expanding on things which of course we should all on all sides of the House like to see done but which would make the whole Bill and the whole scope of the Bill very much larger than either was intended or can possibly be allowed for out of resources at the present time. It is for these reasons that, in order to save the time of the House, I have, as other noble Lords have, dealt with the three Amendments together, and would ask that the noble Lord does not press them.
1.23 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the whole House will find that a disappointing reply. I am not sure that we should all fight at our most hard on all three of these Amendments. However, may we return to Amendment No. 11, which I think is a matter on which we all agreed. I am bound to say, after listening to the noble Baroness, that I did not quite understand her reply. I have much more sympathy for the points she made on Amendment No. 10—I can see the force of Lord Northfield's argument on that—and on the new Amendment No. 13. On Amendment No. 11 it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was using one argument to defend the Bill and another

605
argument on the same point to explain why we could not have Amendment No. 11.
I do not claim to be an expert on the cleaning of buildings or indeed on their external repair, but I have enough knowledge about the cleaning of buildings— I am thinking particularly of Oxford colleges—to know that it is always said that the cleaning of buildings actually improves them in the sense that getting the grime off strenghtens them and makes a great deal of difference. That, of course, is allowed. But the external repair, which again is something which goes on over a long period of time as an old building begins to decay, is something excluded from this particular matter.
The noble Baroness argued that, once this was written in, everybody would be queueing up for a grant and there would be no end to it all. The whole of Clause 5 is permissive, so if the local authority thinks it ought not to do it, it need not do it. I just find it difficult to understand why Clause 5(2)(d), or indeed 5(2)(b), should be in the Bill, and it is impossible to have this proposed new subsection (f). It does not seem to me that it is committing a local authority to great expenditure. It is allowing a local discretion where it thinks it right, and I find it difficult to see that a different principle is being adduced.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, earlier on in this debate there was a mild criticism of the noble Baroness and her Department from the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in respect of correspondence between us. It is only fair for me now to say that when we have special benefits they should be mentioned, and only just now a little bird dropped a note beside me headed "Lord Sandford" which bore a remarkable resemblance to what the noble Baroness has just been saying to us, and I am grateful for it. I think it may be because the Department has not always remembered that Ministers have changed round. Nevertheless, it is very helpful to know what is coming in the debate just before it comes.
In respect of Amendment No. 10 I do not think that the noble Baroness has answered my main point, which is why it is appropriate to have in the Bill provision for powers to aid in the contruction of new accesses, which is certainly a function of
606
the highway authority, and not for improvements, which in many cases would be a much more desirable activity. However, I shall not press the point because I do not think it is as strong as the next one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.26 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("(f) the exterior repair or painting of buildings").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on adopting a very useful dodge for getting a chance of speaking twice on the same Amendment during Report stage, because of course she is now entitled to speak to this Amendment again if she wants to. I shall very much welcome it if she does. What I was saying was by way of preliminary to all three Amendments, but I should like to speak to this one specifically in addition.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, is not the noble Lord doing exactly the same thing? He moved them, and spoke to them all. I was trying to help. I do not want to speak to them again at all, and I should be happy if he would follow the same lines.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall not speak at all extensively, but it is an Amendment which I think has a great deal more force than Amendment No. 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and my noble friend Lady Young, have said. Take, for instance—and the noble Baroness will have seen this herself—this huge factory in Rochdale which is largely disused and is in a derelict area and has an enormous chimney. One cannot possibly say that it is the routine maintenance work of the very small firm which occupies a small proportion of that factory to be responsible for its repair, painting and maintenance. But, for the sake of the area as a whole, it was important that the whole building was put into good shape and made to look nice. Rochdale, using a great deal of drive, imagination, and ingenuity, persuaded ICI Paints Division to do it for them. But we cannot proceed throughout all the industrial improvement areas by adopting dodges of that kind.

607
It seems to me entirely appropriate that this power should be provided for in the Bill so that when there are not generous firms like ICI around, who can be persuaded to do this, the local authorities can use their proper powers. This was a matter wihch was incorporated specifically in the Tyne and Wear Act at Section 56(2)(b), and I really do not see any reason why cleaning and demolition should be in the Bill while painting or repairing, which are equally appropriate measures but less drastic and possibly cheaper, should not be in the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, if we are all taking advantage of the possibility of two speeches, may I say a few words to my noble friend. She is being slightly restrictive in the definition of amenities. That is what it is really all about. She is saying that Clause 5 covers only clearing up the external landscape. We are saying that there is some need to preserve some of the industrial heritage as well when it has become disused and might be used for good social purposes, and we regard that as amenity. That is the difference between us. Under the Amendment a voluntary group, for example, could have help with the exterior repair of such a building. This is a very small extension of the definition of "amenity" and I
hope my noble friend will agree to look at the matter before Third Reading, rather than force us into a difficult position today.
Baroness BIRK: It is unfortunate, my Lords, in that this time-saving thing has worked the other way. This is simply trying to make sure that local authorities are not given the financial responsibility of having to do things, or being asked to do things, which firms themselves should undertake, and it is really in the interest of everyone concerned, ratepayers and taxpayers. That is what it is all about and the distinction between cleaning buildings and painting them is very real.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, my only answer to that is that there would be nothing in the clause, if amended, which would oblige a local authority to make a loan available or pay a grant; it would be entirely within their discretion. If they thought a firm should do the job itself, they would not pay a grant. I feel I must press the Amendment.
1.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Alport, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Banks, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Byers, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Clancarty, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Crathorne, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Derwent, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 [Grants for converting or improving building]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
1.39 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("£1,000 ") and insert ("£1,500").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can speak briefly to this Amendment because we discussed it in Committee, and I tabled it again because considerable sympathy was expressed for it at that stage by many noble Lords. On reading the Hansard report of those proceedings I felt that the noble Baroness had not produced a sufficiently clear reason for inserting in the clause £1,000 and not £1,500.
The issue is simple. The clause covers grants for converting and improving buldings. It will apply to an old factory which is to be converted or improved for industrial use. The two subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) are alternatives and the amount of the grant is to be whichever is the lesser. I believe—and I had considerable support for this view in Committee—that £1,000 is too low to allow a job to be created and that the going rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, eloquently pointed out—and I have had further evidence of this since the last stage of the Bill—is a much higher sum that that. It costs between £3,000 and £5,000 to create a job. One-half of £3,000 would be approximately £1,500. To put into the Bill a sum that is already too low means that we would fail to have the jobs created or the old factories improved because the sums of money would never be sufficient to do it. This is a serious matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her reply and feel that there is here something worth doing to achieve an objective that we all wish to see achieved.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, most of what I intended to say is going over the same ground that I covered in Committee. Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not go over that again. I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that I have looked at this point again very carefully, because I was obviously struck by the comments made by other noble Lords in different parts of the House. However,
610
I think that there has been a certain amount of confusion. The figure has been carefully costed. I have had it checked again. That is the correct costing. There is power in the Bill already for the Secretary of State to increase the amount if it is shown to be necessary, but we must go on the figures at the present time, otherwise we should ourselves be helping along an inflationary situation.
Where I think there has been some misunderstanding is that the figure relates only to the cost of the building works. Therefore it cannot be directly compared with the figures often quoted in the context of regional policy for the cost of creating a job. This is what the figure in the Bill is concerned with. The Bill is only concerned with the cost of creating accommodation for a job. This is the difference. In speaking to one or two noble Lords, who are not unfortunately in the Chamber at the moment, I discovered that they had misinterpreted this provision. Let me say that there is no criticism. It is easy to misinterpret points in a Bill—in any piece of legislation.
This figure has been carefully costed. I have looked at it again because I was struck by the comments made by noble Lords. But if it is looked at in the context of the cost of creating accommodation for a job, then I think it falls much more into place. That fact, taken together with the power in the Bill—I have already pointed out that the Secretary of State has power to increase the amount—leads me to think that the amount should be left in the Bill as it is at the moment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful for that comment by the noble Baroness. It seems very strange that it was not made earlier on and that we have introduced a completely new fact into it. I think, in under the circumstances, and in view of the lateness of the hour, that I shall not press this Amendment, as I had originally intended to do. However, I will read carefully what the noble Baroness said. I give notice that if this is not a matter which I have fully understood or about which I am absolutely clear, I shall return to it on Third Reading. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.45 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause:
Grants to national voluntary bodies
(".The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants for assisting persons engaged in promoting or assisting schemes and research relating to, and dissemination of information in respect of, the enhancement of the physical environment and the promotion of employment in designated districts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this topic of central Government grants to national and regional voluntary bodies has arisen at both previous stages of the Bill and, in my view, very properly so, as we are all agreed that it is essential to find a formula which successfully harnesses to the full the voluntary effort and enterprise that the major national charities can guide and deploy through their local affiliates in the inner areas of our cities.
In the previous debate three main points emerged. First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, confirmed that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State had no lack of powers to grant-aid national and local voluntary bodies capable of contributing to environmental improvement. That was a useful reassurance. The second point that emerged was that in the last and the last but one financial year, although he had these powers, he made far less use of them to grant-aid national and regional voluntary bodies than, for instance, did the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. As between the last two years, when the Department of Health and Social Security increased their grants to national and local voluntary bodies to the extent of doubling them, the Secretary of State for the Department of the Enviornment virtually had no increase at all. That seems to us to be an extraordinary way of preparing and girding up the loins of the national voluntary bodies to play their full part in helping to solve the problems of the inner cities. The third point that emerged on the last occasion was that the noble Baroness said that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the National Council of Social Service were to meet the following week; and this they must have done. One object of the Amendment is to provide an oppor
612
tunity for the noble Baroness to give us the upshot of that meeting. That is one of the reasons why I have tabled this Amendment, although your Lordships will see that it is slightly revised and, I hope, improved.
We want to continue the debate for two further reasons: first, so that the noble Baroness may give us a fuller explanation of why her right honourable friend is not yet more strongly supporting the national and regional environmental bodies which need to act, and act urgently and skilfully, in the kind of way that my Amendments suggest, if the local voluntary bodies are to make their effective response in each local situation. I am sure she will see that it is not possible to do that unless some research and development work for this rather special kind of work in the inner cities is done for them at the centre.
My third reason for putting down the Amendment again is to secure that another place can debate the same point when the Amendment goes back to it, and to do so in the light of the more up-to-date information about the grant-aiding of voluntary bodies in the current financial year. This is now available. have a Question for Written Answer on the Order Paper, dated 22nd June, designed to elicit this information. I quite understand that the Department or the Home Office—if that is the Department which is collating it—have not been able to provide it in time for this debate. That would have been useful and valuable. However, it is much more important that another place debates the matter because it is more appropriate for it to debate financial matters. It was too early in the current financial year for the other place to do that when the Bill was before it, and the third aim of the Amendment is to enable it to do so now. I beg to move.
1.50 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, we have been over this ground before, and the rôle of the voluntary bodies was also discussed at considerable length when the Bill was considered in another place. I believe that the noble Lord accepts that we already have the ability to make the kind of grant provided for in the new clause, and to that extent

613
the clause is unnecessary, but I accept that he is using it as a means to have a brief discussion. Furthermore, as I am sure he is also aware, it is outside the scope of the Money Resolution on the Bill.
I immediately accept that national voluntary bodies can help in the development of local voluntary effort, certainly in environmental and economic improvement. Indeed, I believe that it is absolutely essential, both in funding and in participation, that voluntary bodies should be playing a consistently active part and that whatever State funding or organisation there is, it is essential for the wellbeing of the whole of our society that the voluntary movement should be playing an effective rôle.
As a footnote to that, I should say that to try to make too clear a distinction between grants given by various Departments—for instance, by the DHSS, the Home Office, or my own Department—can end up in a splitting of charitable hairs, which would be a great pity. The grants being given by the DHSS are helping people, and therefore are helping in a wider environmental sense. A similar position applies with grants given by other Departments. So I do not think that this always works out in quite a fair split. My Department already grants aid to a number of national bodies whose activities span the whole range of its environmental concerns. The noble Lord recently cited the figure of £650,000 for direct grants by the Department in 1976/77. That included grants totalling £250,000 to road safety organisations, but now these are the responsibility of the Department of Transport, and so there is a book-keeping transfer involved. If the remaining £400,000 is compared to present day grant total, it is clear that there has been a marked increase in the support being given to national voluntary bodies, and in the current financial year over £600,000 is being made available. The Keep Britain Tidy Group, which makes an enormous contribution to the entire environmental scene, alone has had its grant raised from £170,000 to £275,000. Furthermore, my Department has taken the initiative in the making of grants to bodies concerned with the problems of homelessness which involve a considerable amount of money.
614
In addition, more national and regional voluntary organisations are receiving financial help, and these include a number which co-ordinate or support local voluntary effort in the inner cities. In the present financial climate it is of course impossible to meet all the competing demands for Government funding. I have in mind the kind of demands which, if one went around the whole of this House, it would be found we are all making. I think it is evident that even with the constraint on resources, the Government are making a significant contribution to the work being done by the national voluntary bodies. However, we must bear in mind that the main thrust of the voluntary movement in tackling the problem in the inner cities is, in the Government's view, at the local level. It is there that the greatest impact must be made, and is being made, through the participation of voluntary bodies in the partnership and programme areas. In the recently announced allocation of resources to local authorities under the urban programme, 38 per cent. of the money was for 180 projects run by voluntary bodies which the local authorities wished to support; and the total estimated cost was about £3·8 million.
I shall personally continue to press for the fullest possible support for voluntary bodies in this field. The meeting which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had with the representatives of the National Council of Social Service provided a very useful exchange of views, not so much on the question of money, but on that of participation. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is probably aware, my right honourable friend has agreed to address the council's conference very shortly. This kind of face-to-face meeting and exchange of views between the voluntary organisation and the Department is important.
If I understood the noble Lord aright, he does not intend to press the Amendment at this stage. He wished to raise various points and, quite rightly, have on the record what he had to say, as well as the Government's attitude. In summing up I wish to say that the Government are fully aware of the invaluable work done by the voluntary bodies, and they will do all within their capacity not only to continue the funding, but to increase it

615
wherever possible. With this I include the work and the areas of participation undertaken by the local authorities, which I realise are not part of the Amendment but are closely connected with it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Baroness for that rather fuller statement about the policy and philosophy of herself and her right honourable friend on the voluntary bodies. We particularly welcome the agreement reached with the NCSS to-have a further meeting on 14th July. As we have every reason to expect a fairly full Answer to my Question for Written Answer on this matter, it would be better to await that before we pursue any of the points that the noble Baroness was making by way of justification of the lack of grant aid from her Department to voluntary bodies. We can return to that when we have the figures.
I was expecting not to have to press the Amendment, because I had been hoping that the noble Baroness would agree that if the other place are to debate it, it must of course be in the Bill. So for that reason I had hoped that she would accept it. The noble Baroness said that she doubted whether the Amendment fell within the Money Resolution. That is not for me or her to decide; it is a matter for another place. I have here a copy of the Money Resolution. It reads:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as respects inner urban areas in Great Britain in which there exists special social need and to amend Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums so ayable under any other Act".
An Amendment which begins:
"The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants…"
seems to me to fall entirely within the Money Resolution; but that is a matter for another place. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the Amendment for the reasons that I have indicated, which are primarily to secure a debate in another place.
Baroness BIRK: Is the noble Lord pressing the Amendment?
Lord SANDFORD: I hope that I do not have to press the Amendment; I am moving it. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it.
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; I am afraid that I will not accept the Amendment, for the reasons I gave. I hope that the noble Lord does not intend to press it, but if he does, I do not intend to put myself or my noble friends into a position in which we appear to be opposing the interests of the voluntary sector. Therefore if he wishes to divide the House, I shall abstain, and ask my noble friends, if they feel that way, to do the same thing.
Lord SANDFORD: Well, my Lords, that is a pity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 28 not moved.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think it might be as well if I moved that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich is in the House, and will be here within that time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
2.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to proceedings in Parliament
("3. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to a programme broadcast by the said Authority so far as the programme consists of proceedings in either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment, as your Lordships will see, deals with a simple point, and I am quite sure that it will not be necessary to detain the Committee very long on either this Amendment or, indeed, the other two Amendments standing in my name, because they deal with very simple and direct points. I have tabled them separately in order to allow the maximum degree of maneouvrability, both to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and to myself and those who support me in these matters, so that the noble Lord may accept one of them, two of them, or three, or indeed none, and we, on the other hand, may decide to press one, two, three, or indeed none, as circumstances dictate.
Coming to the first of these Amendments, it consists of adding to the Bill a new clause in the words on the Marshalled List, and those words are in point of fact precisely the words of a clause which was formerly in this Bill when it went to Committee in another place. I have tabled it in the same words, which appear to be somewhat tortuous. Indeed, I have done that just in case the noble Lord should say that he agreed with the point but there was something defective in the wording; and it seemed to me that, since the
618
wording had been devised by those who advise the noble Lord, it was unlikely that they would come along and tell me that the wording was in fact defective. It is precisely the same wording as existed in the original Bill, when the Bill went to Committee in another place.
At that time that clause was removed from the Bill. I think it is only fair to say that it was not removed from the Bill as a result of a concerted action by one particular Party, as was perhaps partly suggested by the noble Lord at Second Reading. It was in fact removed because Members from all Parties felt, not that they did not agree with that particular clause, but that it did not go far enough. Amendments could not be put then because under the Rules of Order in another place they were not covered by the Long Title of the Bill as it then was, and the clause was removed in the hope that your Lordships, either in Committee or elsewhere, might be able to devise something more comprehensive. As a first gesture I seek merely to restore that clause to the Bill. It would be appropriate if I were to remind your Lordships that this deals with Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act, which your Lordships will recollect requires the Independent Broadcasting Authority to secure the exclusion from its programmes of contributions on matters of political or industrial controversy or appertaining to public policy by any one of a whole list of prescribed persons. These are, in fact, members of the IBA, directors of the contracting radio or television companies and other members and indeed employees of either the Authority or the independent companies.
One consequence of this—and I think it is generally acknowledged—is that Section 4(2) of the original Broadcasting Act has a number of serious defects. I am aware that evidence was given on this point to the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and recommendations were made for considerable changes in the original Act with regard to the operation of Section 4(2). I am aware that the Government intend in due course to produce a White Paper dealing with various matters arising from the Annan Committee and, no doubt, dealing with this particular point; and, of course, it will be some time before those matters emerge. However, there are certain

619
urgent matters with which we are already faced. With one of those urgent matters, this clause in the original Bill dealt effectively. The effect of Section 4(2) was that whenever certain noble Lords in this House or in this Committee or whenever certain Members of the other place, who happened to be either members of the Authority or otherwise prescribed persons on that list of persons whose contributions had to be excluded, were speaking in either House of Parliament that meant that the Independent Broadcasting Authority was immediately in breach of the Act if it allowed the broadcasting of the proceedings of whichever House of Parliament it was to continue. That was something which had to be sorted out in order to do away with a real difficulty.
This simple clause, in precisely the form in which it appeared in the original Bill, does exactly that. It states merely that the application of Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of either House of Parliament. Unless we do that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is in an awful muddle whenever the proceedings of either House are being broadcast because there are many people who may be speaking at any time, and it is obvious that they will be speaking on matters of either political or industrial controversy or, at least, on matters appertaining to public policy. We have, therefore, a kind of nonsense which should not be allowed to continue. Here we have a simple restoration of a clause in the original Bill. With those words, I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Lord REDESDALE: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for putting his case so clearly on this Amendment. From these Benches I should just like to say that we support him, although I accept that the noble Lord the Minister will want to consider the matter further at a later stage and might want to expand it. Therefore, I should only like to go so far as saying that we support the concept of this Amendment as it appears to be a very logical and straightforward way of rationalising the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has afforded
620
us in this Amendment the opportunity to consider the clause which, as I pointed out during our debate in Second Reading, was rejected in Committee in another place. I do not want to go over the ground again as to why that happened. The noble Lord may recall that the point I made about why that clause was rejected and by whom it was rejected, was made following a speech made by the Opposition Front Bench on that occasion. Nevertheless, I welcome what the noble Lord has just said.
The clause, which would have implemented a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting in their Second Report, was rejected in another place not, I think, because of any basic opposition to the relaxation it proposed to Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation to Parliamentary broadcasting, but because a number of honourable members wished to prod the Government into making a more substantial Amendment to Section 4(2). I must make it clear, as I did on Second Reading, that the Government would find it impossible to deal within the compass of this Bill, with the whole question of the future of Section 4(2). This provision raises issues which go to the heart of our concept of public service broadcasting, and we wish to deal with them in our forthcoming White Paper. It will be appropriate to deal with that in that way because it raises substantial questions of public policy. I do not think, for the reasons which I have indicated, that it would be right to deal with it in this Bill because we come in this and other Amendments to rather narrower matters. I shall deal with those when the noble Lord proposes his Amendments.
We have all along regarded the clause, which the noble Lord is seeking to reinstate in the Bill, as a matter pre-eminently for Parliament. It was for this reason that we did not think it appropriate to seek to move on Report in another place or today an Amendment to reverse the decision taken in Committee in another place. That said, we did, of course, consider that the clause to exclude Section 4(2) and (5) of the 1973 Act in relation to Parliamentary broadcasting was a sensible measure. If it is the committee's wish that this clause should be reinstated in the Bill, it ought properly

621
to come before, and not after, the clause dealing with the short title and extent of the Bill. I should be pleased therefore to move an Amendment on Report, if the Committee so wishes, which puts the clause back in what I think is the more appropriate place in the Bill. Given this undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will withdraw his Amendment and I will so what I have suggested on Report.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support. What the noble Lord has just said shows that one can never count on anything going entirely smoothly. Having set down the Amendment in precisely the words which the Government used before, I thought everything would be plain sailing. But I now find that I have not put it in the right place. I fully accept that. On the assurance given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.18 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to proceedings of District or County Councils
"4. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of District or County Councils.".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment consists of a new clause to he added to the Bill at an appropriate place. It deals with an extremely simple point. If it is proper and appropriate to say that Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, it is surely logical that we should also say that nor should Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act apply to broadcasts of
622
the proceedings of local authorities. Precisely the same point and the same difficulty have arisen.
For example, the Leader of the Conservative Party in the Manchester City Council is Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw. Very frequently the proceedings of the council have been broadcast live by independent radio. BBC radio can do as they wish: Section 4(2) does not apply to them; it applies merely to independent programmes. The proceedings of that city council have been broadcast live and that means that if Dame Kathleen happened to be speaking then immediately once again the Independent Broadcasting Authority would be in breach of the law. There has been a case in which the Lord Mayor of a city was in fact a proscribed person because he was a director of a broadcasting company and it would have meant that whenever his city council was sitting, if the Lord Mayor had presumed to intervene in the proceedings for a moment, once again the Independent Broadcasting Authority would have been in breach of the law. It seems to me that this is a very simple matter and I would ask the Government to address their minds to it. It is something which surely could be done very simply, without prejudice to what is done in the future.
With regard to Section 4(2) as a whole, if it is appropriate that we should say that Section 4(2) shall not apply to broadcasts of proceedings of Parliament, then it seems to me that it is sensible and logical to say that it shall not apply to broadcasts of the proceedings of local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This Amendment raises the question of whether we should exclude Sections 4(2) and 4(5) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in relation not only to the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings but also to the broadcasting of local government proceedings. If I may make this point—it is a fairly self-evident one —of course any existing member of a local authority, and any person who stands for election to a local authority, knows when he stands for election that any broadcasting of his remarks or of any speech he may make is in fact excluded, and has been excluded since the passage of the Independent Broadcasting Authority

623
Act. It does not therefore come as a tremendous surprise if any statement he might make in a broadcast of proceedings of a local authority meeting were to be excluded.
Certainly I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord and I appreciate that there are a number of proceedings, including the proceedings of the Greater London Council, which have been broadcast by independent radio stations. But I am afraid that there are two problems over this particular Amendment. One is that in fact the objective which the noble Lord seeks would not be secured by this Amendment, because it deals only with district and county councils. There are a large number of other local authority organisations which would be excluded from his Amendment. There are parish councils and the Greater London Council, which, as I am advised, would not be covered by this; and of course there are the London Borough Councils. In Scotland there are Regional and Island Areas as well as district councils, and there are in addition community councils. In the case of Wales, there are also Welsh community councils, but they are not exactly the same as community councils in Scotland.
I would say to the noble Lord that I will gladly look at this matter between now and the Report stage. I think we would have to consult the local authority associations about this because it affects them very substantially. Subject to that, I could not at the moment give an absolute firm and cast-iron commitment; but I will undertake to consult the local authority associations between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I be allowed to detain your Lordships for some 30 seconds. What worries me about this Bill is that the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is moving sound eminently reasonable and, at first sight, one would automatically support them. What I should like the Minister to address his mind to is one simple point. I shall put it very simply and then sit down, leaving it to him at a later stage to refer to it again. Could this be a back-door method of widening the privilege of the broadcasting authorities in their broadcasting of proceedings in
624
this House or the proceedings of local authorities or associated bodies? It seems to me that these areas—if Amendments such as this were not enacted—would be subject to what action an individual may take to seek redress through the courts. In this matter I do not have the Independent Broadcasting Authority in mind, but I do have very much in mind the BBC. I am extremely worried about the growth of the influence of the BBC, which seems to imagine that its powers are derived from Heaven when it comes to conflict with the rights of individuals. I am an opponent of the extension of the privileges of the BBC, even if it is done by what I regard as the apparently innocuous and commendable Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has brought to your Lordships' attention.
Lord REDESDALE: As I understand it—and I am sure that the noble Lord will clarify this point—this Amendment does not affect the BBC in any way. There is a precedent involved. It is not a question of the BBC's rights being increased in any way. It is merely a question of being logical. If the BBC can do it, then the IBA can do it as well. I should have thought that that was logical, and that it was not too hard to make the wording cover all the various councils that exist. It is a fairly rational amendment to bring the IBA into line with the BBC.
Lord WIGG: I entirely agree that it is absolutely rational, and it has my support. I am not so confused as to imagine that this, in itself, affects the BBC. But what I am interested in in politics is not what people do openly; in other words, I am a disciple of Napoleon, and I am always worried about what comes in on the flank, such as the little gentle zephyr today which is quoted as a precedent tomorrow. As I said, this has my support and it is utterly reasonable, but it appears to me to extend the privileges of a broadcasting authority.
First, there was Parliament, and now it is local authorities. That worries me, because, before we know where we are, this extension will add more powers to the BBC, which does not obtain its powers from Parliament; it obtains them from God. Therefore it is above criticism from such mortals as myself. That is why I

625
watch very closely, and I shall continue to watch, proposals of this kind. I should have thought I would have carried noble Lords opposite with me on increasing the power of statutory authorities in relation to the individual. I am a disciple of Josiah Wedgewood and say "Forever freedom", but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which is what brings me here this afternoon.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Wigg here this afternoon. If I may deal, first, with the question of the BBC and then go on to one or two other matters which have arisen, the BBC is required by ministerial prescription, under Clause 13(4) of its Licence and Agreement —because as my noble friend will be aware, there is no comparable legislation so far as the BBC is concerned; it is dealt with by the Licence and Agreement—
"To refrain at all times from sending any broadcast matter in the following classes".
Then the subsection (a) follows:
"matter expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or on matters of public policy".
That is the position so far as the BBC is concerned.
Certainly, this could be interpreted, in certain circumstances, as requiring the BBC not to broadcast a Parliamentary speech by a Member of another place, or by a Member of this House, referring to the Corporation's opinions on any of these matters. The intention is to remove Parliamentary broadcasting by the BBC from the scope of this prescription, just as Clause 2 of the Bill removes Parliamentary broadcasting by the IBA from the scope of Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act. This can be done by appropriate formal correspondence, as and when Parliament approves the amendment of Section 4(2). It is a fairly narrow point. It does not, in my view, give an enormous increase of powers, so far as the BBC is concerned. I do not think there is any weight in that point.
So far as Section 4(2) is concerned, the position is that it prevents the Independent Broadcasting Authority from broadcasting the views of, among others, the directors of an independent television company, or an independent radio company, on
626
"matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".
The question which is raised in this Amendment is, what happens if the director of an independent radio company or independent television company is also a member of a local authority whose debate is then broadcast, be it the Greater London Council, or the Greater Manchester Council, and so on?
When Parliament decided upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, it introduced a blanket prohibition, and that is the existing situation. So far as the Bill is concerned, we are relieving Members of either place from this proscription. We are saying that in the case of a Member of another place or a Member of this House—this is the matter which we discussed on the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley —this particular problem would be removed and that the Independent Broadcasting Authority would be entitled to broadcast a speech made in either House by the Director of a television company or of an independent radio company. As I have indicated, that would be the effect of the first Amendment. The effect of this Amendment is to relieve a member of a local authority in exactly the same way.
What I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is that I think that there must be a pause for reflection. On a matter of this kind, it is clearly important to consult the local authority associations. It seems to me to be quite inappropriate to pass an Amendment of this character—affecting, as it would, existing members of local authorities—without giving to local authority associations an opportunity to make their comments upon it. Subject to that, we shall, as I have indicated, look at the matter, I hope at Report stage although it might conceivably be at Third Reading. However, I have given that undertaking and I hope that it will satisfy both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
2.32 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have advised the Committee on this little point. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for his qualified support, if I may so call it, although I

627
congratulate him upon his vigilance and caution with regard to the extension of the powers of any non-elected body in any field whatsoever. However, I assure him that I have no such Machiavellian intention. My intention is merely to sort out what seems to me to be a minor administrative muddle whereby at the moment the Independent Broadcasting Authority is entirely free to broadcast the proceedings of a local authority, save it if happens that one of the people speaking turns out to be one of the proscribed people. Then they are in a muddle and in breach of the law. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that it is a simple point.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for assuring the Committee that he will address his mind to the point and for accepting that it is one of some consequence and possibly could be of some urgency both to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to some of the local authorities and members of local authorities who are caught up by this provision. On the understanding that the noble Lord will look further into the matter and come back to it at Report or at some other stage of the Bill, and while reserving my own right to raise the issue again at a later stage if the product of the noble Lords thoughts have not been entirely satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WIGG: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, does not have my qualified support. He has my unqualified support. I am not questioning either his motive or the efficacy of the methods he has employed. I am not even saying that I want the Minister to have a formal inquiry into the matter. Let me explain what I do mean. I am suspicious of Liberal zephyrs. I do not say that because the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, sits on the Liberal Benches, although that does not relieve me of my suspicions. In fact, I am suspicious of those whose bleeding hearts run away with their bloody heads. It is that which worries me.
I accept the motives behind the Amendment. I am quite sure that the Minister will look at the matter and that the answer from his point of view will be absolutely all right. What I am concerned about is
628
that this Liberal approach should not subsequently be exploited by Big Brother. That is what I am saying. The Minister ought to bear in mind what Big Brother can get up to, and has got up to, and its power at the moment—which I do not regard as wholly beneficent. It was for that reason that I raised my point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.35 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY Lord WINSTANLEY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Section 4(2) and (5) of Act of 1973 not to apply to broadcasts made in connection with a Parliamentary election
("5. Nothing in section 4(2) and (5) of the said Act of 1973 (of which subsection (2) provides for the exclusion from programmes broadcast by the said Authority of the opinions of the Authority and any programme contractor, and of certain persons connected with the Authority or such a contractor, about matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and of which subsection (5) provides for the exclusion from such programmes of certain religious matter and of certain publicity for charitable or benevolent institutions) shall apply to broadcasts made by or on behalf of candidates in connection with a Parliamentary election.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also consists of a new clause to be added to the Bill in the words appearing on the Marshalled List. This deals with a similar but marginally different point, although to my mind perhaps an even more urgent one. As I said earlier, we have received an assurance that the Government will be looking further at the recommendations of the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan; will be producing a White Paper, and may well be producing legislation which will deal comprehensively with Section 4(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act. But before that time comes to pass it seems likely that we shall have a General Election. I cannot say exactly when although I could perhaps hazard a guess, but I think it will be before we receive the White Paper and certainly before we see the legislation.
When that General Election takes place there will immediately be a very serious difficulty with which the Independent Broadcasting Authority will have to contend. Indeed it is a difficulty with which the Authority has already had to

629
contend and about which, if I may say so, it has perhaps already made certain errors. The situation is that there is no doubt at all that many of the candidates in the next Parliamentary Election, in all Parties—and I have in mind five Parties—will in fact be proscribed people under this Section. They will be either members of the Authority or employees or directors of contracting companies. That means that if in the course of the General Election their words are to be broadcast on Independent Television or Independent radio—and I imagine that they will again be expressing views on matters appertaining to public policy—the Independent Broadcasting Authority will be in breach of the Act.
That occurred recently in the by-election at Grimsby when the Labour candidate—now the Labour Member—for that seat, Mr. Austin Mitchell, was in fact an unpaid director of Pennine Radio. The fact remains that he is a proscribed person. Either the Independent Broadcasting Authority did not notice, or it chose not to notice, and it did in fact broadcast his speeches in that by-election. But had it implemented the Act rigidly and said, "No, he cannot appear and we cannot broadcast his words" then in order to comply with the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act they would also have had to ensure that none of the other candidates could have broadcast either. That would have meant that that election could not have been covered at all on either Independent Television or Independent radio although it could of course have been covered—as indeed it was—very fully by BBC Radio and BBC Television.
That type of situation which was then marginal in one by-election will be reproduced over and over again in the coming General Election. The Authority will immediately be in difficulty with regard to the fulfilment of its various responsibilities, under the Independent Broadcasting Act and under the Representation of the Peoples Act, unless we say, as I propose in my new clause, that this section shall not apply to broadcasts made by or on behalf of candidates in a Parliamentary Election. I add the words "or on behalf of candidates" because there are other people in the political Parties of influence who may perhaps be running the Parties'
630
Press conferences or may be chairing meetings and who are also proscribed persons but whose contribution during the election campaign will be fully and adequately covered by the BBC, while under the terms of Section 4(2) it could not be covered at all on Independent Television or Independent radio. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I fear that I must approach this Amendment with rather more caution than either of the other two, and at the moment I am not persuaded that an Amendment on the lines proposed would in fact be an improvement to the Bill. I will begin by defining the area of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. If it is argued, as indeed it is argued by him, that Section 4(2) is inherently unsatisfactory, as he has pointed out this is a matter which has been dealt with in evidence to the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. But, of course, it raises some very substantial questions. After all, it was the clear intention of Parliament that there should be certain rules applying to people who are directors of independent television or radio companies.
The view was that it was important—and I can say this only as an assumption: this legislation was put forward by the Party opposite when in office— to ensure that a director of an independent television, or independent radio, company did not misuse his power by ensuring that he had some very agreeable relations with the management of that company, and that by reason of his directorship one found that there was a very remarkable number of broadcasts emanating from the same individual, using his position as a director of that company to ensure that he got a great deal of attention, be it on television or radio. That was clearly the intention of Parliament. Undoubtedly, a number of significant problems have arisen as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is quite right. There was the case of Mr. Kerry Packer, who I believe has a relationship with Trident Television, and who a few months ago was a figure of some controversy. Cases of that kind do undoubtedly raise quite significant problems, both to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and indeed to the general public interest.

631
I think that matters as wide and significant as this will have to be dealt with in substantive legislation. The question really is whether we try to do it in this Bill. I would say to the noble Lord that I do slightly hesitate about his use of the phrase, "this is an urgent point". It has been urgent as long as this legislation has been on the Statute Book. It was, as I have indicated, the clear intention of Parliament that this should be on the Statute Book. The noble Lord deals with the position of a person who is a candidate for Parliament. But what about the person who is a candidate for a local authority? Independent radio stations do cover local authority elections in exactly the same way as Parliamentary elections. That is one point which, of course, would not be covered by the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Then we come to the person who is not a candidate but is speaking on behalf of a candidate. That is much wider than the point of the Grimsby by-election, if I may say so, much wider. When, after all, does an election begin? Does it begin when the election is announced. What happens if a person says, "I am speaking on behalf of somebody or other who is now the prospective candidate for this particular constituency", someone who had been adopted six months after a General Election for what will manifestly be a five-year Parliament?
For these reasons, I believe that this particular matter would be far more appropriately dealt with in the legislation which will undoubtedly follow the publication of the Government's White Paper on Annan. I recognise that there is a definite sense of unease as far as Independent television and independent radio are concerned about the particular way in which the present legislative framework bites upon them. That is absolutely true. I have had the matter drawn very forcibly to my attention by a very large number of people; I am well aware of the anxieties which have been expressed and there is undoubtedly some justification for some of these anxieties. But this matter can be more appropriately dealt with in substantive legislation. I do not believe that the Amendment we have before us would improve the Bill. It raises some very substantial questions which go a great
632
deal wider than simply a particular Parliamentary by-election, or even a particular General Election. I do not think it is appropriate to deal with this particular complex difficult matter in this particular fashion. For that reason I am afraid at the moment we are not persuaded that this Amendment would improve the Bill.
Lord REDESDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made his case very clearly and we are all extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining the problems that exist. Although we on these Benches sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in his concept of trying to rationalise the situation and can see that there are a number of problems which require greater definition, I think we must accept the point that this legislation has been around for some time and just because the Bill is now coming forward it does not really have to be dealt with at this time, and perhaps it might be appropriate to look at the matter when the whole of the situation has to be gone into in greater detail at a later date. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said and I can see an enormous number of difficulties, but although I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I do not think that he would expect us to go through the Lobby with him.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what he has said on this particular matter. I must say at once that I am entirely at one with him in saying that it would be more appropriate for this and other matters relating to Section 4(2) to be dealt with in the legislation which follows the White Paper arising from the report of the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Annan. However, at the same time, the Minister will agree with me that that legislation will not appear before the forthcoming General Election. My anxiety was to see, if possible, that something was done to mitigate the difficulties which will be encountered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, candidates, political Parties and political agents when that election comes to pass.
However, I accept that this is a complex matter and that is it not quite as specific and narrow as the other matters with which we have already dealt. Nevertheless

633
I am encouraged by the realisation that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, accepts that there is a very real problem which will certainly have to be tackled sooner or later. I shall consider very carefully what the noble Lord has said—I shall have an opportunity to read and consider it further—and I shall discuss what he has said with noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House who takes the same view as I do and feel that something should be done. Having had those consultations and considerations I shall then decide at a later stage whether or not to try to proceed further. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

  TAX: INTERNATIONAL PERCENTAGES
  TAX: INTERNATIONAL PERCENTAGES
  AGRICULTURAL SHOWS: MINISTRY REPRESENTATION
  AGRICULTURAL SHOWS: MINISTRY REPRESENTATION