Sitting of 11 December 1979

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

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [28 June],
  That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday.

  TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Hospital Closures
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has now reconsidered his letter of 22 August to the chairman of the North-West Thames regional health authority on the subject of consultation on closures as promised by his hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 13 November; and, if so, whether he will confirm that that letter was meant to apply to very short-term closures of small sub-units.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): Temporary closure should not be a way of avoiding consultation. When a substantial temporary closure has to be made without prior consultation, the authority is still expected to consult
    1050
    afterwards if there is any danger of the closure becoming lasting.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that while he has been making conciliatory noises on the question of consultation about closures, the Secretary of State has been adopting a hard line on the matter? Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that his view prevails?
    Dr. Vaughan: I am not aware that there is any difference of view between my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Mellish: The Minister will be aware that in my constituency a hospital in perfect condition, with 230 beds, has been closed without consultation. That closure has caused great hardship and pain. Will the Minister state what consultations took place? Will he also define "temporary"?
    Dr. Vaughan: In a few cases the authorities—I am not saying that that is one of them—may have misunderstood the position initially. For that reason we issued clarification guidance.
    I do not believe that it would be helpful to try to define the word "temporary". A closure is temporary so long as no other alternative is brought forward.
    Mr. Moyle: The Government have been compounding confusion in this matter. First, the Secretary of State issued a letter of guidance which was supposed not to change the position. It could have fooled hon. Members. Then the Minister made statements which are more acceptable, but which the community health councils consider to be different from those of his right hon. Friend. The Minister is now issuing further guidance which may confuse matters. Why does not the Minister state firmly that the practices of previous Ministers should be followed? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and his constituents will then know where they stand.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. My request for brief supplementary questions. applied to Front Bench as well as to Back-Bench speakers.
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept the lengthy allegations of the right hon. Gentleman. Much of the chaos could have been avoided had there been clearer guidelines from the previous Government.

    Residential Accommodation (Mentally Handicapped Persons)
    . Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mentally handicapped persons in each of the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley area health authority areas would require residential accommodation if they were not being cared for by their elderly parents; and if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the provision of accommodation when these parents can no longer look after their children.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): The figures requested are not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to ask the area health authorities concerned what information they hold. We believe that it is often best for mentally handicapped people to live at home and it is therefore our aim to ensure that support is provided to families with a mentally handicapped member to enable them to cope for as long as possible. Satisfactory residential or hospital accommodation, appropriate to their needs, should be provided for those mentally handicapped people no longer able to live at home.
    Mr. Wainwright: A report issued by the Rotherham area health authority states that there are approximately 400 mentally handicapped adults in that area. That means that there are thousands of parents in the country who are disturbed about what will happen to their sons and daughters when there is no parental care. What will the Government do about that? The cuts in expenditure on the Health Service will mean that there will be no help for these children when their parents die.
    Sir G. Young: I am aware of the CHC report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The report is now being considered by the Rotherham area health authority. In Doncaster and Rotherham there are no urgent cases awaiting long-term care. There is only one patient in Barnsley urgently awaiting admission for long-term care.
    Mr. Crowther: The Minister says that the area health authority should provide residential accommodation for mentally
    1052
    handicapped persons whose parents can no longer care for them. Has he taken into account the need to provide them with the necessary resources to do so? Will not that be more difficult in the light of the Government's policy on public expenditure?
    Sir G. Young: No. Building of new hospital units for 96 adults and 24 children is due to start in Barnsley next year. The Doncaster and Rotherham AHAs already provide a comprehensive service for mentally handicapped people in their areas.
    Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    National Health Service (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will implement his proposals for the administrative streamlining of the Health Service; and if the plans will include the abolition of Derbyshire area health authority.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the progress of his consultations on changes to the administrative structure of the National Health Service.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): We have today published our proposals to streamline the structure and management of the National Health Service in England and Wales in a consultative paper entitled "Patients First". It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to speculate about the future of specific area health authorities.
    Mr. Rost: May we have an assurance that the Government will use an axe, rather than tweezers, on those health authorities that prefer to close hospitals than to cut their own waste and inefficiency? Is it not true that under proper management there wouldbe more than enough cash to provide better facilities for patients in need?
    Mr. Jenkin: We believe that the closer that management decisions are taken to

    1053
    the point of patient care the more likely it is that patients' interests will predominate. Our proposals are designed to strengthen management at the local hospital level and to bring health authorities closer to the people.
    Mr. Lawrence: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, but is he aware that there is considerable feeling that the Health Service is over-weighted in administration and that those who work with those who suffer in our society are becoming increasingly separated, in terms of experience and salary, from those who take the decisions? Is my right hon. Friend aware that urgencyis necessary in order to save the morale of the NHS?
    Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. If he reads the consultative document he will see that our proposals are designed to deal with precisely those problems.
    Mr. Orme: We note that the Secretary of State is to attempt to put right the disastrous reorganisation carried out by the present Secretary of State for Industry. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the House will be able to debate the consultative document and the Royal Commission report before the Second Reading of the Health Services Bill?
    Mr. Jenkin: The question of debates is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. On the right hon. Gentleman's substantive question, a great deal of benefit flowed from the unification of the primary care, community and hospital services, which was one of the principal objectives of the 1974 reform. However, there is now common consent that the Service has an over-elaborate structure and planning system and that decisions are taken too far away from the point of patient care. We have published today proposals to put that right.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend take into account, when considering streamlining the NHS, the growing number of recent reports about ancillary workers who are apparently overpaid, under worked and not pulling their weight within the NHS? If the reports are true, is not the position that they reveal grossly unfair on the majority of workers in the NHS, medical and others, who are doing
    1054
    a good job? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what action he proposes to take in light of those reports?
    Mr. Jenkin: I too have read the reports, and I regard them as disturbing. However, they are no great surprise. The primary need—and this is the central point in the document published today—is to strengthen management at the local level—and by that I mean in the hospital and the community. I stress "management" because I agree with what was said to me a few months ago by a wise hospital head porter who remarked "The trouble with the Health Service is that there is too much administration and not enough management".
    Mr. Ennals: I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).Will the Secretary of State admit that there is something rather cheeky about a paper entitled "Patients First" being produced by a Government who have just put up prescription charges to 70p and have squeezed the NHS of money for patients more than any previous Government?
    Mr. Jenkin: If I wanted lessons on how to manage the NHS, I am not sure that I would go to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that even 70p, which will apply from next April, is no bigger a proportion of the cost of a prescription than was the 20p charge when it was introduced in 1971. We are doing no more than keeping the charge level with the rising costs of prescriptions.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in the local units to which he referred the trade unions that organise doctors, technicians and nurses are represented?
    Mr. Jenkin: No. We are putting forward the proposal that we should not follow up the suggestion of, I think, Mrs. Barbara Castle that there should be automatic representation of staff interests on health authorities. It is noteworthy that in the five years since she made that proposal, during which time a Labour Government were in power, no one succeeded in even bringing forward for consultation a procedure under which that proposal could be implemented. Our view is that staff interests are more properly taken account of in proper joint consultation

    1055
    procedures. We lay great emphasis on that.

    Social Services (Expenditure)
    . Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received representations from local authority directors of social services about their budget for 1980–81.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the majority of directors of social services are appalled at his insistence that the recipients of social services—the elderly and the sick—have to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of the tax cuts that the Government have given to the wealthy? When will the right hon. Gentleman standup in the Cabinet and fight for the poorest sections of the community?
    Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps I may commend to the hon. Gentleman and those on behalf of whom he has asked his question an article in Social Work Today at the end of October by a young residential social worker, Mr. Keith White. He says:
    "it is deplorable to argue that the social services are being run as efficiently and economically as possible and that therefore nothing can be streamlined. This is naïve and untrue. There are glaring examples of inefficient administration and delivery of the social services."
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State admit that his disgraceful decision to abolish the Personal Social Services Council was taken because the council was ably pointing out the detrimental effects of the cuts in social services? From whom will the Government get advice on social services—and they are badly in need of advice—now that they have decided to abolish the body set up by the present Secretary of State for Industry?
    Mr. Jenkin: The impression that I have formed in the past six months is that the Government are not short of advice on the personal social services. We have to see whether we are getting that advice in the most efficient and effective way and without undue overlapping. The Personal Social Services Council has had a number of years of experience and I have concluded that we can probably get
    1056
    advice through other, professional, channels as effectively, and perhaps more effectively. If a body has not proved itself to be essential, I do not believe that the public ought to go on paying for it.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Association of Social Workers, of which Social Work Today is the journal, is launching a massive campaign against the Government's cuts in social services? I am a member of the association, which is horrified that many elderly people will probably die this winter who would have stayed alive if the Government had not come to power.
    Mr. Jenkin: I commend to the hon. Gentleman a further proposition put by Mr. White in his article:
    "In the wake of the social work strikes and the emotional harm they inflicted on clients, doesn't the present demand for compassion on the part of others have that hint of hypocrisy?"
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that in issuing the directive to the directors of social services my right hon. Friend had in mind that the problem is that these departments are heavily over laden with administrative personnel. Will he state that the action of the Government in asking for cuts in the social services is principally directed towards administrative personnel and not at the elderly and the sick?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will know that in paragraph 38 of the White Paper we said that the Government expected that savings would, as far as possible, be made by further increases in efficiency. I hope that both elected members and professional heads of departments are doing their utmost to achieve that.

    Free Welfare Milk and Prescriptions
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated take-up rate of those entitled to free welfare milk and prescriptions and if he will undertake publicity campaigns to improve this take-up rate.
    Sir George Young: I estimate that for most categories of beneficiary the take-up is 95 per cent. or above. For those entitled to claim on grounds of income the take-up has always been small and now stands at about 4 per cent. The

    1057
    Government already publicise the benefits in a variety of ways and the question of any further publicity would have to be considered in the light of other work and the resources available.
    Mrs. Short: Is the Minister aware that the take-up of free welfare milk was only about 1·8 per cent. in 1977? As these figures will no longer be worked out, according to the Secretary of State, we shall never know what the trend is. That means that about 600,000 families are being deprived of what they should receive in order to maintain family nutriments for proper subsistence. What will the Minister do about this deplorable situation?
    Sir G. Young: The hon. Lady does not have her facts quite right.
    Mrs. Short: Yes she has.
    Sir G. Young: The take-up of welfare milk is not 1·8 per cent. overall.
    Mrs. Short: Yes it is.
    Sir G. Young: It is 96 per cent. for supplementary benefit recipients, 98 per cent. for family income supplement recipients, and 100 per cent. for handicapped children not registered at school. The 4 per cent. applies only to those claiming on low-income grants. Nothing said by my right hon. Friend yesterday affects their position.
    Mr. Race: Is it not a fact that the situation with regard to prescriptions is disturbing? There is a great shortfall in the number of people taking up their entitlement to free prescriptions. Does not this draw attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission that all charges in the National Health Service, including prescription charges, should be abolished forthwith?
    Sir G. Young: No, Sir. Information is available on every prescription form about exemption from charges. Posters giving this information are available in doctors' surgeries, health clinics, chemists, hospitals and local DHSS and family practitioner offices, and it is also made known on leaflets that are available from post offices, DHSS offices, and family practitioner committees.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that the cuts in school meals, transport and
    1058
    housing, the increases in electricity charges, and now welfare foods, are aimed at large families where the husband is working? These cuts are being made by a Government who talk about incentives for people at work. What does the Minister say about that?
    Sir G. Young: I repeat that nothing that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday about free welfare milk affects anyone entitled to free milk on the ground of low income.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give extra financial help to retirement pensioners in view of the substantial increase in the cost of a television licence.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): My right hon. Friend has no proposals to make a special payment for this purpose. But the recent increase in the cost of television licences will be reflected in the general index of retail prices and, to that extent, it will be taken into account with other price increases when the rates of retirement pension are next reviewed.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that, particularly at Christmas, countless thousands of old-age pensioners will regard themselves as the victims of a cruel deception? The Minister's Department is giving them £10 with one hand, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking it back with another. What kind of Christmas gift is that for old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I think that there was an attempt at cruel deception by the Labour Party when it promised pensioners free television licences, without saying where the money would come from.
    Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend consider what is a sore point, namely that some pensioners pay the full rate for a TV licence while others, living almost next door, do not pay a licence fee at all? This is an anomaly. Will my right hon. Friend look into it?
    Mr. Prentice: I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about old persons' homes, for which a small licence fee was

    1059
    introduced in 1969 not as a welfare concession but to correct an anomaly in the licensing of those homes.
    Mr. Freeson: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he is the last person to talk about deception. Will he accept that if we are to wait until there is a further uprating of pensions nearly a year will pass between the recent announcement of the increase in the television licence fee and the Government's taking action to uprate pensions?
    Mr. Prentice: It is in the nature of pension upratings that between one uprating and the next 12 months later, the cost of living will increase. That is why the fight against inflation is our most important fight, on behalf of pensioners as well as the rest of the community.

    Maternity Grant
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his estimate of the cost of making the maternity grant non-contributory.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With the grant at its present level the additional gross cost would be £1½ million a year. This would be offset by an estimated £300,000 paid out by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in lieu of the grant.
    Mr. Bottomley: As the grant at present goes to everybody except those who need it most, will the Government consider making the maternity grant non-contributory at the earliest possible moment?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said in the House on 23 November, the Government are giving the proposal careful consideration, and an announcement will be made when that consideration is completed.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the hon. Lady aware that the perinatal mortality rate in then on-contributory group is five times that in class 1? Does she realise that any delay will mean that five times the number of babies born in that group will either be born either dead or with a severe handicap?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a problem here. However, we are in danger of
    1060
    creating too strong a link between the level of the grant and the perinatal mortality figures. Probably the more important figures are those that relate to the biological effects of deprivation and poor nutrition in early childhood and the effects of smoking and poor housing in adult life.
    Mr. Haynes: Are the Secretary of State and his Ministers aware that in my constituency an officer of the Department is alleged to have said that the Government are seriously considering abolishing certain benefits, and that the maternity grant is one of them?
    Mrs. Chalker: The House knows that many claims are made by certain people for their own reasons in various constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know what this claim is, I shall look into it.

    Pneumoconiosis
    . Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will permit certification of pneumoconiosis for disability pension purposes by two general practitioners.
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The diagnosis of pneumoconiosis requires special skill in the reading of radiographs and interpreting the results of clinical examination and lung function tests which pneumoconiosis medical panel doctors have acquired, together with specialist knowledge of the disease in all its forms, through dealing with thousands of cases every year. General practitioners do not have this special training or experience in industrial chest diseases.
    Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the mining valleys of Wales there is deep distress that the pneumoconiosis medical tribunals are turning down many more applicants than before? About 70 per cent. are rejected, compared with 30 per cent. previously. Will the right hon. Gentleman take seriously what was put to him by the deputation that came to see him? Will he review the matter and take a more sympathetic attitude to those suffering from pneumoconiosis?
    Mr. Prentice: I listened carefully to the deputation, but my confidence in the professional ability and integrity of the doctors who serve on the panels is not shaken

    1061
    in any way. Fewer claims are now succeeding because safety precautions have improved in coal mining and other industries which involve a risk of dust disease. Fewer miners are therefore contracting the disease. I should have thought that that would be welcome news to us all.
    Mr. Ashley: If the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis requires specialist skill and knowledge, as the Minister claims, why are some panels staffed by junior doctors, some of whom need refresher courses in chest medicine? Why do no people with full-time consultant status serve on the panels? Will the Minister accept the suggestion that there should be one doctor and one full-time consultant on each panel?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir, I shall not. Ever since the industrial injuries scheme was founded in 1948 claims for benefit for industrial accidents or industrial diseases have been decided by properly appointed adjudicating panels. That system has stood the test of time. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) does not come up to his usual standards when he makes attacks against professional people, who give good service to the community and who are not in a position to answer him back.
    Mr. Burden: Has any advance been made in the diagnosis of asbestosis during the life of the patient? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this disease is as debilitating as pneumoconiosis and that it is difficult to diagnose until after death?
    Mr. Prentice: I need notice of that question. If my hon. Friend tables another question or writes to me on the matter I shall answer him.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Dr. Hampsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the increase in the number of people dependent on supplementary benefit between December 1973 and December 1978.
    Mrs. Chalker: No direct comparison of the statistics is possible because of a change in the method of estimation, but the number of claimants and their dependants went up by about 700,000.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, together with other means-tested benefit figures, lend
    1062
    support to the immortal words of the former hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak Mr. Litterick, when earlier this summer he said that the present Government have a long way to go before their contribution to the sum total of human misery equals the last Labour Government's contribution?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rooker: Given that deplorable increase in the number of people who are dependent on supplementary benefit, why are the Government in their White Paper on reforming supplementary benefit procedures planning to cut benefits to 1,750,000 people? Is that the Government's way of reducing the number of people receiving supplementary benefit?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the 1,750,000 people to whom he referred are mainly single people, who will lose between 25p and 40p at the time of an upgrading in order to bring national insurance benefits and supplementary benefits into line. If we are to achieve a simplification of our social security system we must at some stage, as the previous Government well know, align national insurance and supplementary benefits.
    Mr. McCrindle: Do not the figures indicate that when the Labour Party continues to inveigh against the evils of selective benefits under the social security system they are guilty of humbug, or worse?
    Mrs. Chalker: Nobody can provide the perfect answer to these grave problems. I notice a great difference between what was said by Labour Members when they were in government and the line that they now take.
    Mr. Stoddart: In the light of the swingeing reductions in public expenditure and rampant monetarism, can the Minister say what the increase in the number of people drawing supplementary benefit will be between December 1979 and December 1980?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot speculate on unknown figures. Inevitably, some people will have no entitlement to unemployment benefit and may therefore have to claim supplementary benefit. I am not able to speculate, and it would be wrong to mislead the House by so doing.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. John Mackayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the estimated increase in the number of people awaiting admission to hospitals between 1974 and 1979.
    Dr. Vaughan: On 31 December 1974, a total of 517,424 people were awaiting admission to National Health Service hospitals in England, compared with 752,422 on 31 March 1979, the latest date for which figures are available. That is an increase of 234, 998.
    Mr. Mackay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures are an appalling indictment of the National Health Service when presided over by the Labour Party? Do not the figures compare unfavourably with those of our European partners? Can my hon. Friend offer hope that the waiting lists will be diminished, as they were when we were last in government?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes. I believe that we shall reduce waiting lists. Britain is the only country in Western Europe where almost half of the hospitals were closed for almost two months to all but emergency admissions. Last winter added 125,000 to the waiting lists.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is not the really shocking indictment the closure of hospitals, either temporarily or permanently, that is occurring under this Government? How much will that increase the waiting lists for admission in the coming year? Will the Minister come to Derbyshire and talk to the authorities there, because they are having to close seven hospitals this year alone?
    Dr. Vaughan: Under the previous Administration about 280 hospitals were closed or approved for closure. On 31 March this year proposals for the closure of a further 31 hospitals were made and proposals for the closure of 2,363 beds were in the pipeline.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In order to put the matter into perspective, will my hon. Friend say how many beds are involved and how many urgent cases there are on the waiting lists?
    Dr. Vaughan: It is difficult to give exact figures of the numbers of beds involved. Across the country over 3,500
    1064
    beds, in brand-new hospitals, have been opened so far this year. Over 1,000 more beds are scheduled for the next three months.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How can the Minister succeed in tackling the waiting list problem when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State states clearly to the world at large that he would rather spend more money on defence than on the Health Service?
    Dr. Vaughan: We are not sitting idly by allowing waiting lists to become worse, as the previous Government did. Only this morning we produced a consultation paper on reorganising management in the National Health Service which we believe will contribute to that end. Last week we issued a clear guide to health authorities and staff so that they know exactly how they stand during an industrial dispute. We have achieved more in a few months than the previous Government did in four years.

    Disabled Children
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the level of assistance for disabled children to enable their parents to meet the extra cost of clothing and footwear.
    Mr. Prentice: Assistance can be provided in appropriate cases under the supplementary benefits scheme. Mobility allowance and attendance allowance are also available to handicapped children who satisfy the criteria for those benefits. Moreover, the family fund may be able to help families of very severely disabled children and voluntary organisations may assist in particular cases. I have every sympathy with the parents of disabled children, but, as I have already made clear, we cannot consider any further assistance to them in the present economic climate.
    Mr. Canavan:What possible justification is there for refusing assistance to my constituents whose daughter has to wear shoes of different sizes? Is the Minister aware that the parents have to spend about £20 every six weeks for two pair of shoes in order to provide one pair of shoes that will fit the child's feet? Why should these parents be penalised financially because their daughter is disabled?
    Mr. Prentice: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about the case of his constituents. They are not on supplementary benefit. Therefore, they have to buy their children's shoes, just as any other parents do. As for the problem of children with a disability which means that they have different sized feet, I was able to send the hon. Gentleman a list prepared by the Disabled Living Foundation of suppliers and retailers who provide odd-sized shoes either for adults or children. I hope that that was helpful.
    Mr. Brotherton: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that equal help will be given to those who go to what used to be known as grammar schools, as opposed to any other form of educational establishment?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the tragic case of 9-year-old Stuart Charles Whitehouse, whose family lost an award of £100,000 for damages in the Appeal Court last week? Is he aware of the statement by Mr. Justice Lawton, that cases of medical mishap should be looked after by the community and not subjected to the hazards of litigation? How do the Minister and the Government respond to that urgent appeal, having regard to the report of the Pearson Commission and to the precedent of the vaccine damage payments scheme?
    Mr. Prentice: That question contained a number of supplementaries, none of which arose from the original question. However, the tragic case that was recently decided in the High Court underlines the fact that society has not found a satisfactory way of dealing with such cases. They ought not to depend, ultimately, on fine points of law as they have done over past generations.

    Hospital Closures
    . Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital beds have been closed in each hospital region over the past month; and how many more closures are contemplated.
    Dr. Vaughan: A total of 381 beds were permanently closed during November. At 30 September 1979 proposals for closures involving 2,153 beds were under formal consultation. I am circulating in the Official Report figures by region for both categories.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us by how much these figures will accelerate over the next 12 months? Can he go even further and say whether there is any prospect of this trend being reversed during the course of the disastrous period of existence of the present Government, with their disregard for the enormous benefits that the country has had from the National Health Service since its inception?
    Dr. Vaughan: If I have followed the hon. Gentleman's question accurately, I refer him to the answer I gave a moment ago. Only this morning we introduced the consultation paper on the reorganisation of the Health Service, which will substantially help in the administration, management and costs of that Service.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the main reason for the closure of beds was the total failure of the previous Administration to prevent disruptive action in the National Health Service? Does he also recognise that there will be overwhelming support in the country for the proposal produced by my right hon. Friend to ensure that this does not happen again?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes, I agree entirely. I should also point out that the appalling and contemptible picketing of Charing Cross hospital increased the urgent waiting list from 213 to 564 patients. That is dreadful.
    Mr. Spriggs: How many National Health Service units have been closed by the St. Helens and Knowsley area health authority, what is the cause of the closures and what will the hon. Gentleman do about it?
    Dr. Vaughan: I understand that consultation is taking place on this. It is something that I should be glad to look into and let the hon. Gentleman know the result.
    Following is the information:

    Region

    Beds permanently closed 1–30 November1979

    Proposals to close under formal consultation at 30 September 1979 Number of beds

    Northern

    …

    …

    —

    147

    Yorkshire

    …

    …

    —

    24

    Trent

    …

    …

    208

    79

    East Anglian

    …

    …

    —

    10

    North-West Thames

    …

    …

    44

    152

    North-East Thames

    …

    …

    —

    299

    South-East Thames

    …

    …

    —

    20

    South-West Thames

    …

    …

    —

    156

    Wessex

    …

    …

    —

    —

    Oxford

    …

    …

    —

    363

    South-Western

    …

    …

    —

    —

    West Midlands

    …

    …

    60

    92

    Mersey

    …

    …

    69

    811

    North-Western

    …

    …

    —

    —

    381

    2,153

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Socal Services whether he has any plans to reorganise the operation of the child benefit scheme.
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that his Department's computer centre in Washington, Co. Durham is now working satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Most of the arrears of work at the child benefit centre caused by industrial action have now been cleared. We are, nevertheless, continuing to examine ways of improving the system.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many people who should be receiving child benefit are not receiving it, for administrative reasons?
    Mrs. Chalker: At this moment I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure. However, anyone who is entitled to child benefit and whose payment is held up by the continuance of the ban on overtime at the child benefit centre should go to his local office, where there are special arrangements for paying those who are in urgent need of that money.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Lady tell the House whether, in pursuit of improving the operation of the child benefit scheme, it is the Government's intention to undertake an uprating of child benefit in April? Is she aware that if an affirmative answer is not given now it will be too late to operate the improvement?
    Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman knows, from previous exchanges in the House, that I amnot at present in a position to give him an answer to that question. He knows full well that the increase of £1 last April, followed in November by our special increase in the level of support for children in one-parent families, where the parent is unable to work or has no earnings, and for working lone parents is the most that the country could afford at present. As we are required to do, we shall undertake a further review in the coming months.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 December.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen. Later I shall attend part of the Save the Children Fund Diamond Jubilee Concert at the Royal Albert Hall.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Prime Minister take some time today to reconsider the Government's decision to deploy American nuclear missiles in this country, particularly as such an important decision will commit future generations and Parliaments to vast amounts of public expenditure, which we cannot afford, for weapons that we shall never be able to use on our own initiative? Could not the

  1069
  Prime Minister at least have the courtesy to pay lip-service to open government and enable the House to debate this important issue before such a decision is taken?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that it would be a calamity for the whole Alliance if the decision to modernise theatre nuclear forces was not taken at once. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence say, for up to six weeks, that he was perfectly prepared to have a debate in this House. There is obviously now no time for that, but I notice that Labour right hon. and hon. Members have not chosen that subject for debate either.
  Mr. James Callaghan: We have pressed the Government for a debate on this subject, as the right hon. Lady knows. The subjects that we have chosen for Supply have been, in our view, equally important. We believe that this is a matter of Government policy. As the Government have failed to provide time for a debate on this subject, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes a statement immediately on his return? We shall then press for a debate following that statement. There will be different views expressed about it. [Interruption.] I may well not find myself wholly in agreement with all my hon. Friends, but this is an important topic that should be debated in the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will hope and expect, with permission, to make a statement on Thursday. As to the matter of a debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pursue that with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to make it crystal clear to everyone who works for the British Steel Corporation that the taxpayer will not pay for wage or salary increases other than those earned by productivity? Will my right hon. Friend make that clear to everyone in the country?
  The Prime Minister: I think that it would be wrong to have the cash limits increased for the purpose of increased wages. If increased wages are covered by increased productivity, that is exactly
  1070
  what the whole House wants. Public funds will, of course, be available to the British Steel Corporation next year, to the tune of about £450 million, but that will not, of course, be for increased wages.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady find a moment to refresh her memory on the advice that I offered to her in an open letter within the last fortnight, that Prime Minister Lynch would not be able, whatever his inclinations, to fulfil this part of any bargain that she might have made? Will the right hon. Lady draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that within a fortnight that advice was validated by events?
  The Prime Minister: I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that from the open letter, which I saw, I had not drawn the conclusion that Mr. Lynch would be resigning in a short time. My recollection is that I was warned while we were in Dublin not to make any arrangements with Mr. Lynch as part of the agreement with the EEC. I did not discuss the matter of Northern Ireland with Mr. Lynch while I was in Dublin.
  Mr. Neubert: Following the incident at Dover yesterday when a suspected assassin was sent back to France, and considering the fact that increasing amounts of heroin are being smuggled in by Iranians, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this country is sufficiently secure against repercussions from the upheavals in Iran? Is she also satisfied that Iranians entering this country are subject to strict vetting?
  The Prime Minister: We are using the ordinary methods of vetting for Iranian visitors. On the question of numbers, up to the end of September, the last month for which figures were available, fewer Iranian visitors came to this country in each month this year compared with last year. We are not applying any particular vetting to Iranian visitors.
  Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. Bidwell: Does the Prime Minister recall her concern last week about the

  1071
  apparent leak from the Cabinet of the decision on pressurised water reactor stations and the fact that one will be located soon? Does she understand that most people in this country are less concerned about leaks in the Cabinet than about radiation leaks? Will she consider siting the power station not in Suffolk but perhaps in Finchley instead?
  The Prime Minister: The record of safety of nuclear installations in this country is excellent. Before any pressurised water reactor could be built it would have to clear the very high standards of the Nuclear Safety Inspectorate. That would come out in any inquiry.
  Mr. Bright: Will the Prime Minister find time to consult the Secretaries of State for Employment and for the Environment to see whether she can secure an effective scheme to enable council house tenants to have greater mobility in the employment market?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that that is an important question. Mobility of labour is limited by the existence of council house tenancies. If someone has a council house in the area where he works he is loth to move because he is afraid that he might not get one in the new area. However, it is easier to pose that question than to find an answer, but we will continue the search.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister take a few minutes to telephone the chairman of Hampshire social services committee to find out why that committee has imposed a minimum charge of £1 a week for home helps, including those for the thousands of elderly and disabled people in Hampshire who are on supplementary benefit?
  The Prime Minister: Local authority expenditure must be left to local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am the first person to criticise savings that are made in services to the public in preference to those made in administration and bureaucracy.
  Mr. Stanbrook: In support of the Government of the United States, will my right hon. Friend consider the question of freezing Iranian Government assets in this country?
  The Prime Minister: There are cases which may come before the courts, and
  1072
  this is a matter which will have to be settled by the decision of the courts. At the moment my advice is that we could not freeze those assets under existing law.

  LONGBRIDGE
  Mr. Cryerasked the Prime Minister when next she intends to visit Longbridge.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Cryer: Is the Prime Minister aware that if she visited Longbridge she would hear expressions of deep concern about her Government's proposal to invoke more nuclear missiles into this country? Does she not realise that this country and the world were placed in danger by the nuclear alert on 9 November? Will she accept that the more nuclear missiles there are in this country, the greater the danger? Is she aware there is absolutely no freedom anywhere if we all finish up in a radioactive cinder heap?
  The Prime Minister: The greatest danger to any country is weakness in defence. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the numbers of nuclear missiles and certain nuclear forces reduced, the first thing that he should do is persuade the Soviet Union to withdraw the 120 SS20s that are already in service.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the recent opinion poll published in a news magazine, which indicated that 91 per cent. of the population approved of an increase in defence spending? Of those members of the Labour Party who were interviewed, 87 per cent. came to the same conclusion.
  The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of people in this country wish to see our freedoms properly defended. They wish us to have enough troops, equipment and nuclear forces to deter any potential aggressor at each and every level.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 11 December.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell us whether she had any thing to do with the fact that the Home Secretary chickened out of the opening of the British Youth Council's exhibition on racial harmony? Is not the Prime Minister ashamed of her statement that this country is being swamped by immigrants, or is she still proud to be the head of a Government who practise racial and sexual discrimination?
  The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary never chickens out of anything, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. That was a very cheap observation. This Government fought an election on our immigration policy and we shall implement it.
  Mr. Brotherton: Can my right hon. Friend find time today to explain why it was possible to freeze Rhodesian assets for 14 years, but today apparently it is not possible to freeze Iranian assets in this country?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should put that question to the Attorney-General. In general, I can tell him that we can put a blockage on assets when there is likely to be a haemorrhage of those assets out of this country, and therefore sterling itself is in danger.
  Mr. Kerr: I shall explain it later to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).
  Mr. Beith: When the Prime Minister consults her colleagues, will she take the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the Bill of Rights which was introduced by Liberals in another place and which has passed all its stages in that place? Has she noticed that Lord Denning has added his voice to those who want to see that Bill enacted?
  The Prime Minister: There are many hon. Members who would wish to have a Bill of Rights. The question is whether one could ever entrench such a Bill in our constitution. It is doubtful whether, having the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, we could ever entrench a Bill of Rights in this country. In theory it is possible to entrench it by a referendum, but I do not believe that under our con-
  1074
  stitution we could be certain that it would stay there.
  Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Prime Minister about the departure today of Lord Soames, which I think goes beyond even the responsibility of the Lord Privy Seal as the departmental Minister? Is it the case that no assurance has yet been received from the parties concerned that they will place themselves under the control of Lord Soames? If that is so—and I understand that that is the case—what instruction has been given to Lord Soames by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, as the country which he will be responsible for governing is at civil war, in the event of an outbreak of hostilities between the two contending factions?
  The Prime Minister: Lord Soames is leaving a little later this afternoon for Rhodesia. The Salisbury Administration have agreed to accept the executive and legislative authority of the Governor. The Patriotic Front has been informed that Lord Soames is going but it has not yet accepted his authority. It is hoped that it will do so within a few days. A document on the details of implementing the ceasefire was laid before those concerned at Lancaster House at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Beyond that, no specific instructions have been given to Lord Soames, other than to restore the country to legality, prepare to implement the ceasefire agreement and to prepare for the election.
  Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have serious reservations about the decision to send Lord Soames today? We can see the advantage of having the Governor in place as soon as there is a ceasefire so that he can begin to implement the agreement, but surely the Prime Minister is placing him in a position of exceptional difficulty, when only one of the two parties has accepted the ceasefire, if there is an outbreak of hostilities. I understand that he needs discretion, but he must have some general instructions about the way to conduct himself if, for example, General Walls orders another excursion into the surrounding territories. This question could involve this country being held responsible by the world for what takes place. We therefore have the gravest reservations. I ask the right hon. Lady for

  1075
  one guarantee. Will she guarantee that no British troops will be sent until a ceasefire has been accepted by all the parties?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the last question, "Yes". With regard to the earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what would happen if General Walls ordered an excursion beyond the country's boundaries. I tried to say to the right hon. Gentleman earlier that the Salisbury Administration accept the Governor's authority, so that would not arise.
  Mr. Speaker: Statement, the Lord Privy Seal.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the matter I wonder whether you have been asked by the Prime Minister whether she can make a statement on Question Q5, in relation to Urenco?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have had no such request. Statement, the Lord Privy Seal.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this the moment when I could raise a Standing Order No. 9 application?
  Mr. Speaker: Applications under Standing Order No. 9 always follow statements. Statement, the Lord Privy Seal.

RHODESIA
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Rhodesia.
We are approaching the conclusion of the Lancaster House conference. Last week, agreement was reached on our proposals for a ceasefire. The final details are still being discussed. Earlier this afternoon my right hon. and noble Friend made in the conference a new presentation of our detailed proposals for the implementation of the ceasefire. We have given assurances about the security of the Patriotic Front forces and that the monitoring force will be adequate to monitor the Rhodesian forces, through their command structure down to company level.
We have explained that the Patriotic Front forces will be sited in their operational areas in locations that will meet their concern that they should not be in close proximity to Rhodesian bases. We have therefore been able to provide the Patriotic Front with the assurances that they have been seeking about their security and the disposition of the Rhodesian forces.
It is important to see the present stage in the perspective of what has already been accomplished. The issue of majority rule, which has been the fundamental cause of the conflict in Rhodesia for 14 years, has been resolved by the independence constitution.
It has been agreed that there should be fresh elections to resolve the question of who should exercise political power. The parties have accepted that a British Governor should exercise legislative and executive authority to supervise the elections and bring Rhodesia back to legality. There is agreement on our proposals for a ceasefire. In the light of what has been agreed, it would be indefensible to continue the war.
Ideally, we would have preferred the final details to be agreed before beginning to put the settlement into effect on the ground, but it is essential to maintain the momentum if we are to achieve a settlement involving all the parties, and if what we have achieved so far is not to be eroded by events outside the conference.

1077
We believe that the proposals that we have put forward this afternoon should lead to early and complete agreement. My right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Soames, will therefore leave later this afternoon for Rhodesia. Delay could risk prejudicing what has been achieved at the conference. The Governor's arrival will help to stabilise the situation and normalise relations with neighbouring countries.
A British authority in Salisbury is necessary to make the final arrangements for bringing the ceasefire into effect. Legality will be restored and sanctions will be lifted with Lord Soames's arrival and the acceptance of his authority.
The Governor will set in train the arrangements for elections. The Government are determined to carry out their responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Shore: This is a highly unsatisfactory statement, for reasons that we have already intimated. There are risks and difficulties enough, in any event, with the arrangements made for the Governor to assume the heavy responsibilities that await him in Salisbury. To throw him in there before a ceasefire has been agreed is, in our view, a foolish policy and a foolish act.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman straight away this question: if a new presentation of the ceasefire details has, according to his own statement, simply been presented this afternoon, why could he not at least have waited for a response to those proposals and delayed Lord Soames' departure for the necessary and, we hope, very short period that would have elapsed? What possible advantage exists for sending him, ahead of his own support and ahead of a ceasefire, to Salisbury, as now proposed?
I should like to follow the point put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend a few moments ago. What instructions does the Governor take with him to the armed forces over whom he is about to assume control? Is he taking with him precise instructions to cease forthwith attacks on bases in neighbouring territories of Rhodesia, such as occurred only a few days ago? Is he seeking to secure at once an immediate scaling down of the whole military operation there?
1078
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commonwealth monitoring force has been alerted and whether it is also about to depart? If not, what arrangements are being made for its arrival in Salisbury? Will he not confirm that the whole reason for the extraordinary acceleration of the timetable is concerned with the fact that the Rhodesian authorities are in the process of voting themselves out of existence during the course of today and tomorrow, and there is to be a lacuna in the government of Rhodesia?
Sir I. Gilmour: That was, if I may say so, a very extraordinary reaction. We have now put forward ceasefire proposals that are utterly fair and meet all the Patriotic Front's concerns. We have already made those available to the House. I appreciate that Opposition Members have not yet seen them. When they see them, I trust that they will give their full support. We shall be achieving tomorrow what everyone else has failed to achieve in 15 years—a return to legality in Salisbury. If we lose that chance, we may lose it for ever.
One would hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party would have learnt a little from history. After all, when we were taking the enabling Bill through the House the Opposition said a lot of things that do not stand up well today. I hope that they will bear that in mind.
I should now like to turn to the right hon. Gentleman's more pertinent questions, following his opening remarks. When to send the Governor must be a matter of judgment. It is a fine judgment. It depends to a great extent on the dynamics of the conference and what is happening in Rhodesia. We have to be the judges of that. If we allow the situation to slip, hostilities may escalate. We have seen the dangers of that over the weekend.
The question of monitoring is one of the reasons why we need to get the Governor there now to supervise the arrangements for preparing the rendezvous and assembly points to receive Patriotic Front forces. He has to be able to make preparations for the assembly of the monitoring forces. They are standing by, but, naturally, arrangements have to be made on the spot.
Mr. Shore: I understand the Lord Privy Seal's irritability. Frankly, he does not feel entirely confident about the decision that has been made. Perhaps I may press him on the most pertinent of the questions that I put. What instructions does the Governor take with him in relation to the use of the Rhodesian armed forces from the moment that he arrives and assumes command?
Sir I. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already answered that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Rhodesian armed forces, like the rest of the administration of the State, will be under the authority of the Governor, and the Salisbury Administration have agreed to accept that authority.
Mr. Shore: This really is not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. No, it really is not good enough. It is treating the House with contempt to refuse to answer a question of major importance. The Governor is sent out under the instructions of the Secretary of State and under the general instructions and the authority of the Cabinet. Will the Lord Privy Seal say what instructions he will be taking out in relation to the use of the Rhodesian armed forces, both outside the frontiers of Rhodesia and inside them?
Sir I. Gilmour: He will, of course, be in command of the armed forces. They will come under his authority. Of course, one of the main purposes of the Governor in going to Rhodesia is to bring an end to cross-border activities by both sides.
Mr. Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that while a decision for Britain to resume responsibility for Rhodesian affairs at this point in time obviously involves dangers that are uncertain, any decision not to do so would involve dangers at least as great, which would be absolutely certain?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what he says. Of course, we have always conceded that there are dangers in what we are doing, but we have always been told to assume responsibility for Rhodesia. This is what we have done. As I have made clear to the House—I think that most hon. Members agree—we are doing the right thing. To let this conflict drag on would be entirely contrary to the
1080
interests of Rhodesia, Southern Africa and this country.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Does not the present situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia show the need for an effective United Nations peacekeeping force? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to raise the matter at the present meeting of the NATO Powers?
Sir I. Gilmour: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman really cannot have been following the negotiations at Lancaster House very carefully. We are well past that stage. We have agreement on the constitution, on the interim arrangements and on our ceasefire proposals. Only the details remain to be worked out. To introduce a United Nations force at this stage would not be at all helpful.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the current purpose of the Patriotic Front at Lancaster House has been delay, in order to push polling day into the season of the rains, when the bush provides cover for terrorist intimidation? May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing that disgraceful process to an end?
Sir I. Gilmour: I certainly would not wish to speculate on the motives of the Patriotic Front. As I told the House earlier, I am confident that we shall reach an agreement with the Patriotic Front later this week. I do not want to go any further than that.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Am I to understand, therefore, that Lord Soames will assume control of the government of Rhodesia as from tomorrow, on his arrival? Is that the actual position? Secondly, the Lord Privy Seal said a moment ago that he hoped that the Lancaster House talks would be concluded this week—and we hope so, too. Is that the sort of timetable for which he is hoping?
Sir I. Gilmour: That is true. Lord Soames will be arriving tomorrow and he will assume immediate authority. I should perhaps say, in clarification of an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that he will have with him his own personal protection.
Mr. Dobson: Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether, following Lord Soames' arrival in Rhodesia, troops of the British

1081
Crown Colony of Rhodesia, as it will then be, will be involved in future in cross-border raids into the neighbouring territories?
Sir I. Gilmour: I thought that I had already answered that. We are confident that there will be final agreement on our proposals. Obviously, in those circumstances, the Government do not and could not contemplate action that would damage relations with neighbouring countries. In this situation we also hope that they, too, will exercise all available influence to ensure that there is no cross-border activity from their side.
Mr. James Callaghan: That does not answer the question. Supposing the attack comes from the Patriotic Front, which has not, as yet, accepted the authority of Lord Soames, what is to be the response of Lord Soames? What instructions has he been given?
Sir I. Gilmour: I have answered the question three times. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is at this stage talking about internal or external matters.
Mr. Faulds: Don't be silly. Answer the bloody question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will withdraw that remark at once.
Mr. Faulds: What remark am I to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: The remark that the hon. Member has just made, of which he and the whole House are aware.
Mr. Faulds: Because I want the matter to get on, if it is the word "bloody" I will withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: The House is much obliged.
Sir I. Gilmour: As I have already made clear, the Salisbury forces will be under the authority of the Governor as soon as he arrives. We hope—I am personally confident of it—that in a short space of time the Patriotic Front forces, after an agreement at Lancaster House later this week, will also be under the authority of the Governor.
Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that as from the Gover-
1082
nor's arrival in Rhodesia later tonight sanctions will be automatically lifted and the new State of Zimbabwe will resume normal relationships with the rest of the world?
Sir I. Gilmour: On a point of detail. Lord Soames arrives tomorrow afternoon. Obviously, when he arrives Rhodesia will return to legality, but her relations with other countries depend as much on other countries as they do on Rhodesia.
Mr. James Johnson: I should like to revert to an earlier question about a United Nations peacekeeping force. Does the Minister not see the implications of this question? If he were to have a United Nations peacekeeping force it would be a basis for future action and it might lead to something that could be used by NATO. Will he not consider the matter in this wider context?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am all for looking at matters in a wider context, but I think that at the moment Rhodesia is sufficiently important in itself to be looked at purely as a problem in isolation. We have made our proposals for a monitoring force. We know the exact numbers that will be coming, and I think that it would be entirely misguided if we tried to alter those plans at this very late stage.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This whole question is to be debated by the House all day tomorrow. I propose to call three more questions from each side of the House.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What undertakings has my right hon. Friend received from the Governments of Zambia, Mozambique and South Africa that from the moment of the British Governor's assuming authority in Rhodesia no troops, no ammunition, no money and no support will go from their territories into what will then be a British territory?
Sir I. Gilmour: Rhodesia's neighbours are well aware of the position. As I told the House last week and, I think, also the week before that, from the arrival of the British Governor there will be no foreign intervention in Rhodesia.
Mr. Whitehead: Will the Lord Privy Seal explain the paradox arising from the fact that he said that the new ceasefire

1083
terms are satisfactory to the Patriotic Front and yet Lord Soames is going there without a ceasefire agreement in his pocket? What are the arrangements for the assembly of the Rhodesian armed forces in bases? Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely confident that those are analogous to the arrangements for the Patriotic Front? Otherwise there is a great danger of pre-emptive strike by one side or the other in exactly the circumstances for which Lord Soames appears to have no precise instructions.
Sir I. Gilmour: I think that the hon. Gentleman will wish to read our proposals in full. I have placed them in the life Library. The hon. Gentleman will want to read them in detail, and I believe that he will be satisfied with them. Putting it broadly and summarily, if all the Patriotic Front forces assemble with their arms, and all cross-border movement of armed Patriotic Front forces ceases, there will be no need for the Rhodesian forces to deploy from their company bases.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Lord Privy Seal recall that while he and many others were euphoric about the breakthrough in the ceasefire, the Rhodesian security forces attacked camps in Zambia and Mozambique, where people were assembling to return—as they are entitled to do—to take part in the arrangements for Rhodesia? Has he made investigations into that? Was it done by the direct order of General Walls, or with his authority and knowledge? If not, how can we guarantee that the Rhodesian security forces will not similarly act, in the next couple of days, as soon as Lord Soames arrives? What are his precise instructions to the Rhodesian security forces?
Sir I. Gilmour: It is not denied that there has been considerable infiltration into Rhodesia by Patriotic Front forces. They have been going across the border very quickly. As I said earlier, that is one of the reasons for sending the Governor out to Rhodesia. From now on, the Rhodesian forces will act only with the Governor's authority.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Patriotic Front attack since the announcement of the ceasefire, and the Salisbury forces'
1084
attack, are in danger of escalation, and that sending Lord Soames out early is not an acceleration but the avoidance of delay if the ceasefire details are agreed in the next day or two?
Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is right. As most of the House will agree, it has been evident, and a feature of the conference, that to keep up momentum is very important. Last weekend's events showed the dangers of not doing so. Everybody at the conference is aware of the dangers of delay and, therefore, there was a strong case for sending out Lord Soames.
Mr. James Callaghan: I make it clear that although we do not think that the Lord Privy Seal has answered the questions satisfactorily, it is certainly our hope that at the end of the 14 long years that Rhodesia has gone through he will, as he says, be able to provide the Patriotic Front with the assurances that it has been seeking about its security and the disposition of the Rhodesian forces. I hope that if this is true the Patriotic Front will have no hesitation in accepting it, so that we may go ahead with a return to legality and to free elections.
Having said that, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that we still do not understand why it would not have been possible to wait until he had received a formal reply and so have avoided the risks that he is now running from the Patriotic Front, before sending Lord Soames to Rhodesia.
Sir I. Gilmour: As I said earlier, there are risks attached to either course. I appreciate that, and it was our judgment that there were lesser risks in what we have done.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. If there can be all-party agreement upon our proposals it will make it all the more likely that they will be accepted by the Patriotic Front.
Mr. Concannon: Will the Lord Privy Seal say a little more about the British and Commonwealth force of 1,200 soldiers that is due to go to Rhodesia? Some of us are concerned about the delicacy of the task being offered to it. When is it to go? What is it supposed to do when it arrives? Will the right hon.

1085
Gentleman say something about the recent history of observers? Some of us are concerned that we shall be pulled into something that the House does not wish for the British forces.
Sir I. Gilmour: Except for the personal security guards that the Governor is taking with him, no British or other troops will arrive in Rhodesia until the final details of the ceasefire have been agreed. Thereafter, they will arrive quickly. They will have the detailed and vital tasks of monitoring both sides to ensure that the ceasefire is observed and to notify any breaches.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend be somewhat more specific? Has Her Majesty's Government received positive undertakings from the front-line Presidents that, as of the return to legality tomorrow, all infiltration of armed terrorists from their territories will be effectively controlled and prevented? Failing such undertakings, what steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that that is done?
Sir I. Gilmour: I have nothing to add to what I said on this in answer to an earlier question.

MR. GEORGE WILKINSON (DEATH)
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked me about the sub judice rule on his ability to pursue the case of a constituent of his who has died in Walton prison and whose death is now the subject of a coroner's inquest.
I have looked into the matter and have decided that, although the cause of death is now sub judice, this would be a suitable case for the exercise of the discretion specifically given to me by the House. I have particularly in mind the fact that under the Criminal Law Act 1977 a coroner is not empowered to name and charge a person with murder or manslaughter. I would, therefore, be prepared to allow questions asking for a statement upon, or an inquiry into, the circumstances surrounding this case in advance of the conclusion of the coroner's investigation.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very sincerely for that ruling. I ask for time to consider the implications.

NUCLEAR MISSILES (NATO MEETING)
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The NATO meeting on 12 December to discuss deploying Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe."
I intend not to discuss the merits of the case, much as I should like to do so, but purely the reasons for it to be debated. First, it is specific. The Secretary of State for Defence has told us that he intends to support the NATO proposal to instal American nuclear missiles on our soil. They will be solely under American control and will not be subject to a two-button key. There must be no annihilation without representation.
It is of vital importance, because the decision will shut the door to negotiations to reduce nuclear missiles as proposed by Mr. Brezhnev two months ago. The world would then, in my view, have passed the point of no return. There would be a fearsome heightening of tension. If, by design or accident, a nuclear bomb landed on Moscow or Leningrad, there would be immediate retaliation against all its possible sources. That would turn our crowded island into a sitting duck.
We, our children and grandchildren would die quickly, or, if 50 miles or so away from the explosions, in agony a few days later. What could be more important than that? Although all the other countries among the 14 involved have discussed the issue seriously—four countries have revolted—we in Britain have not discussed it in the House. We have not even had a statement from the Minister.
Mr. Cryer: Scandalous.
Mr. Allaun: The new factor yesterday was that the Secretary of State for Defence made a speech that did not merely assent to the installing of nuclear missiles in Britain but positively urged talks and

1087
hectored the other nations to take the same approach.
Television, radio and the press have all debated the issue, but we in the House have not. Surely a matter of such importance and relevance should take precedence over the relatively trivial matters on the Order Paper this week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) gave me notice before 12 o'clock noon today that he would seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The NATO meeting on 12 December to discuss deploying Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said and to the exchanges earlier this afternoon between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister on this very issue. The hon. Gentleman has obviously raised an important matter. The House knows that I do not decide whether it shall be debated. My choice is limited to deciding whether it shall be
1088
debated tonight or tomorrow, if it is to be debated at all.
The house has instructed me to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

THE HON. MEMBER FOR BIRMINGHAM, PERRY BARR
Mr. Tom Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been press references to a telephone conversation that I had with the chairman of the Secretaries' Council, in which reference was made to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). On reflection, I think that it was unwise of me to have made that reference, although my intention was without malice. I assure the House and the hon. Member for Perry Barr that I had no intention of casting any doubt on the honour or integrity of the hon. Gentleman. If, as a result of my action, a wrong interpretation has been placed, I can only apologise most sincerely.

SECURITY SERVICE
4.2 pm
Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give legal authority for the creation of a security service, and to provide for the appointment of its Director-General and for his accountability to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
I am conscious that the House and the country have been subjected to a welter of information and comment on the Anthony Blunt affair. It reached a new height of absurdity last week when the Evening News splashed on its front page an exclusive story that Mr. Blunt is now working on a book on architecture. I hasten to assure the House that I do not propose to weary it with yet another speech about the Blunt affair. However, it would be remiss of the House to allow the Security Service to sink from sight for another decade until the next spy scandal gives us another opportunity to probe what it does in our name. Instead, we should provide a proper legal framework for the Security Service and a proper system of accountability.
It is a remarkable fact that there is no Act on the statute book that provides the Government with the legal authority to raise and maintain a Security Service. I can go further than that. I have had the Library check through the statute book and it has come up with only one statute that even acknowledges the existence of the Security Service—namely, the Civil List and Secret Service Money Act 1782. Section 24 of that far-seeing piece of legislation provides:
"for preventing as much as may be all abuses…it shall not be lawful to issue for the purpose of secret service within this kingdom, any sums of money which in the whole shall exceed ten thousand pounds in any one year."
That prompts the unhappy thought that not only is there no legal authority for the existence of the Security Service but that for the best part of the past 200 years the funds released to it from the Treasury have been wholly illegal. The statute to which I have referred was not repealed until 1977,when the funds released for the Security Service exceeded not only £10,000 but £10 million. The effect of repeal was to expunge from the statute book the one solitary recognition that the
1090
Security Service exists. That is plainly unsatisfactory.
We should set the Security Service on a proper legal footing. We should leave the Government in no doubt that they have the power to raise and maintain such a service. It follows that any measure that provides for the maintaining of a Security Service must also set out the functions of that service.
Fortunately, we have to hand the directive that was issued by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe when he was Home Secretary in 1952. That directive gives us a reasonable basis on which to erect a framework, another directive, or a remit for our Security Service. However, there is one important respect in which the directive has proved too elastic with the passage of time. In his directive to the Security Service Sir David charged it with, among other tasks, the duty of defence of the realm against
"persons and organizations…which may be judged subversive."
We have no way of knowing what persons or organisations the Security Service may regard as subversive. We know that the search for persons whom the Security Service suspects of being subversives has been the main reason for its expansion during the past two or three decades. One of the problems about the debate involving Mr. Anthony Blunt is that it has left the public with the impression—it has reinforced the view—that the Security Service is about catching foreign spies. Regrettably that is so far from the truth that it is now approaching pure myth. The greater part of the activity of the Security Service is the domestic surveillance of the British population in its search of those that it suspects are secret subversives.
Moreover, that surveillance is accompanied by methods such as phone tapping and mail opening, which are lacking in explicit statutory authority and are devoid of any vestige of accountability to the House. These matters are crying out for legislation.
The terms "subversion" and "subversive" are subjective. They are highly elastic. It may be that there are hon. Members who regard such an august and respectable body as the national executive committee of the Labour Party as a subversive organisation. We do not

1091
know whether it comes within the definition of "subversive" that is used by the Security Service. That is because we have furnished it with no such definition.
There is the definition that was supplied to me by the Minister of State, Home Office. It is a free definition, which provides plenty of room for subjective judgment to roam at will. It pro-ides as a definition of "subversive"
"activities which are intended to undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
That provides carte blanche for the Security Service to stick its nose into any political organisation or any form of industrial action. We should give it a clear remit that restricts its surveillance to citizens who may be judged to be undermining parliamentary democracy by violent means or by any other unlawful means. Parliament has not created a wider crime of subversion and Government have no power to maintain a secret police force to police the political organisations whose views may be held by that police force to be subversive.
The debate on Mr. Blunt concentrated on the question whether the Security Service is properly accountable to Ministers. That missed the point. It does not seem to matter very much whether the Security Services are answerable to a Minister when that Minister is not answerable to the House. At present the Minister cannot be made answerable to this House. He is not even obliged to answer questions on matters that are known to every journalist in Fleet Street, such as the name of the Director-General of the Security Service.
I am greeted with incredulity when I explain to outsiders that I am allowed to ask only one question a year about the Security Service. That one question is invariably replied to with a refusal to answer any further question for the next 12 months. Other democracies manage affairs differently. Both America and
1092
Germany arguably have a greater awareness of security than Britain. Both those countries find it compatible to have a committee of Congress or a committee of the Bundestag with broad responsibility for the security services. There is no reason not to have a Select Committee, made up of senior Members, that could meet in private to discuss the principles, policy and resources of the Security Service.
I emphasise that during the past two decades we have seen a major expansion of the Security Service. The number of its agents is believed to have doubled. The latest computer technology has been made available to the security services, making it possible for them to store and retrieve information on a number of individuals. That technology exceeds the wildest dreams of the pre-war secret service.
Perhaps the security services carry out a necessary task effectively, but the House has no means of assuring itself, or the public that it represents, that that is the case. It is not prudent to let the situation continue, and I ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill to remedy that state of affairs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Phillip Whitehead and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

SECURITY SERVICE
  SECURITY SERVICE
  Mr. Robin F. Cook accordingly presented a Bill to give legal authority for the creation of a security service, and to provide for the appointment of its Director-General and for his accountability to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

NORTHERN IRELAND(EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That this House approves the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28th November.
Today we have two main Northern Ireland debates, although others will follow. Later this evening we shall be debating financial matters and there will be an opportunity to take note of the heartening signs of economic life in Northern Ireland, despite all the difficulties. That is part of the background to this earlier debate. The other background to this debate is the terrorism that continues to bedevil Northern Ireland; and that is the reason for proposing once again that the emergency provisions Act should continue in force for a further six months. The House will expect me to give, as is customary, an analysis of the current security situation in Northern Ireland. However, before I embark on the details of the current situation I would like to make a few general observations.
It is very difficult, as all who know Northern Ireland will agree, to be objective about the security situation without running the risk of appearing cold and calculating. It is difficult to resist the temptation to say that the security situation is getting worse when there has been a run of terrorist acts. It is difficult also to resist the temptation to claim that the terrorist is on the run, just because there have been some notable successes by the security forces. What I would like to do this afternoon is to give, not only to the House but also to the people of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland, an analysis that seeks to avoid those two traps.
Contrary to what many people genuinely believe to be the case, violence in 1979 has not got a great deal worse than it was in 1978. There is no doubt that some types of violence have increased in 1979, and there is equally no doubt that in some geographical areas of Northern Ireland, particularly Armagh and County Tyrone, there has been a marked increase in violence. But taking Northern Ireland as a whole, and taking all the
1094
indicators of violence together, 1979 has seen only a slight upturn in violence since 1978. I need hardly remind the House, however, that there have been some terrible incidents in 1979, including the killing of 18 soldiers at Warrenpoint on August bank holiday Monday, that have deeply shocked us all. One hundred and four people have lost their lives so far this year, 56 of them members of the security forces and nine of them members of the prison service. Every killing is one too many.
The figures I have quoted show to what extent the Provisional IRA has concentrated its venom this year upon the security forces, and recently—more strikingly still—upon the prison service. I want to say a special word about the recent murderous attacks on members of the prison service. Here we have a body of men who are carrying out their difficult task courageously, effectively, and without complaint. The role of the prison officer is to treat those committed by the courts in accordance with the requirements of prison rules—which, broadly speaking, are the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain—and to do so with understanding and humanity.
Prison officers are not concerned with the circumstances of the offences for which the men and women in their charge were sent to prison. If the Provisional IRA believes that, by its attack on prison officers, it will further its campaign for special concessions for convicted criminals who belong to their organisation, I have to tell it that it is wasting its time. The Government will grant no such concessions. If the Provisional IRA hopes to break the morale of the prison service, I am glad to say that I have not the slightest reason to suppose that it is having any success.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and devotion to duty which the prison staff have shown.
I am very much aware of the depth of feeling among law-abiding citizens in the Province about continuing terrorist activities. That manifested itself in the resolutions passed recently by a number of local councils. I appreciate the very real concern that lay behind those resolutions but I hope that they in turn appreciate the Government's determination to tackle terrorism effectively.

1095
I am sorry to say that in recent months there has been an increase in what appear to be sectarian killings. There is something peculiarly obnoxious about killing a man because he holds such and such a creed or family name. Those assassinations can profit no one. They will simply add to the spiral of violence. I have to make it clear that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on the perpetrators of violence, regardless of its origin or its purported motive.
I shall not pretend today that terrorism will not continue to pose a serious problem, particularly in parts of Belfast and some of the border areas. Besides the continuing attacks on the security forces and prison officers, the co-ordinated bomb and incendiary attacks on 26 November show that the Provisional IRA retains the ability to cause disruption and destruction. On that day, of the 35 devices that were planted across the Province, no fewer than 12 were neutralised. That demonstrates how much the general public and the business community can do to frustrate such violence. Their alertness and readiness to report suspicious objects or events can be of immense help to the security forces.
I know that we can rely on members of the Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to continue to serve the community with the dedication that they have shown over the years. Their tasks may often seem thankless, but I can assure them that the protection that they offer to the community—often at risk to their own safety—deserve unstinted praise which I know everyone in this House unhesitatingly gives them.
The House will wish to know what the Government themselves are doing in the face of the continuing terrorist threat. We remain fixed in our resolve to eliminate terrorism and to restore normal policing throughout Northern Ieland. The essence of the policy is that the RUC, with the Army in support where necessary, should bring terrorists to justice before the courts. But there are many ways in which the security forces frustrate the evil designs of the terrorist.
Since I last moved the renewal of this Act on 2 July, 124 firearms and over 20,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered, and 62 explosive devices have
1096
been neutralised—a measure of the terrorist crimes that are prevented. But taking terrorists out of circulation through the processes of the law remains our chief means of combating terrorism. The House will wish to know that so far this year 625 people have been charged with terrorist offences, 44 of them with murder and 34 with attempted murder, and up to the end of last month, 805 people have been convicted of terrorist offences, including 52 of murder and 16 of attempted murder.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman add anything to what he said six months ago about the origin not only of the 20,000 rounds of ammunition but of other arms that fall into terrorist hands?
Mr. Atkins: I cannot say where they originated from. We can sometimes discover their country of origin, but it does not necessarily follow that they came straight from there. One of the things that we are seeking to follow up all the time, not just through the activities of the RUC but through other police forces and, indeed, Interpol, is the method by which the terrorists in the North obtain their supplies. Unfortunately, I cannot be absolutely precise, save only that they are brought into the country from their countries of manufacture, not the United Kingdom. The indications are that very few are brought in by sea.
The search for effective measures to thwart the terrorists is constantly pursued.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Does the total arms find that the Secretary of State has just announced include the vast quantity of arms found last week in County Down, which were obviously in the hands of the UDA and not the IRA?
Mr. Atkins: Yes. The figures that I have given are up to date. I have not differentiated, and I do not differentiate, between terrorists. Anyone who commits a scheduled offence is a terrorist and is to be pursued with the utmost force of the law.
The search for effective measures to thwart the terrorists is constantly pursued. I am now assisted in this by Sir Maurice Oldfield, who was appointed a while ago to a new post as my security co-ordinator. For reasons which I know the House

1097
will appreciate, I do not intend to detail all the measures that we are taking. I would, however, like to mention a few important developments.
First, as the House already knows, the target strength of the regular force of the RUC has been raised from 6,500 to 7,500. By the end of November, the strength stood at 6,580 compared with 6,110 at the end of 1978. This is an encouraging recruiting trend, and it is matched by many other improvements in the capability of the RUC. The vehicle fleet is being steadily increased; a new and very advanced teleprinter system has been commissioned; a modern command computer system is due to be operational next year; and a substantial building programme is in hand to provide increased accommodation and facilities for the force.
The Chief Constable undoubtedly has at his command a thriving and modern police force well equipped to fight terrorism, but still mindful of its other responsibilities to the community including, for example, regular community relations work.
I want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the outgoing Chief Constable, Sir Kenneth Newman. Under his guidance over many years, the Force has steadily grown in strength and ability. The fact that the morale of the force has remained high, notwithstanding the extraordinary demands and stresses imposed upon it by the terrorist campaign, is a measure of his outstanding leadership and of the respect in which he is held by those under his command. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express to Sir Kenneth its gratitude for a job well done and to extend good wishes to his successor, Mr. Jack Hermon.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the weaponry available to the RUC. He mentioned many things that helped to win the battle against terrorism. Can he now give any information about the arms supply from the United States so that the RUC might have proper weaponry to deal with terrorism?
Mr. Atkins: I have no more information to give the House since I last answered questions. A proportion of the arms that we need has been received from
1098
the United States. The United States Administration are carrying out a review of their policy. As at today, we are not embarrassed by not having received any more arms. We do not need them yet. That time will come, and I hope very much that the United States Government will have carried out their review before we need any more and that they will be forthcoming.
I spoke about the Chief Constable, and paid him a tribute for all the work that he has done for the RUC. I want also to say that the cool, determined efficiency and professional response of the Army, particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy at Warren point in August, is clear evidence, if that were needed, of the impact and firmness which General Sir Timothy Creasey, who will also be leaving the Province shortly after Christmas, has brought to the Army's work in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with me in expressing our gratitude to the GOC for the burdens that he has shouldered during the years of his appointment, and, through him and the Chief Constable, to express our gratitude to the ordinary men and women of the Services which they command and which have shown once again their own steadfastness and determination to protect our community on our behalf.
I am sure that the House will also have been heartened by the recent major successes of the security forces of the Republic of Ireland against our acknowledged common enemy. The large arms find in Dublin docks, arms finds in the border areas and the conviction so far of one of those involved in the murder of Lord Mountbatten, are illustrations of the fight being waged against terrorism throughout Ireland.
I have referred already to the development of cross-border co-operation against terrorism with the Republic of Ireland, following the meetings between the Prime Minister and the former Taoiseach and myself and Mr. O'Kennedy. That co-operation, at the working level between the security forces in the field on both sides, has been developing to good effect. The Government are confident that the new Government of the Republic, whom we wish well in their task, share the view of the previous Administration that terrorism in

1099
the island of Ireland is our common enemy and that we will continue to work together to defeat it.
I have instanced some of the ways in which we are maintaining the drive against terrorism. We shall take any further measures that we may consider necessary to overcome the threat. The keynote to our policy is flexibility—flexibility in the use of manpower, in the disposition of forces, in the choice of operational tools and in the individual response to particular terrorist activities. But, there are two things we must not do. We must not take actions which have only a cosmetic effect; and we must not adopt draconian policies which, dramatic as they may sound, would involve, in practice, a far less efficient use of security force manpower, or would undermine the success we are having in isolating the terrorists from both local and international support.
The same principles underlie my approach to the business that we have to transact today. The draft order before the House will continue in force all the temporary powers of the emergency provisions Act for a further six months. In recommending this course, I have had to pay regard to the present security situation and to the views of my security advisers. But this is no automatic recommendation. Before making up my mind, I have looked carefully at the range of temporary provisions and the purposes they fulfil. It is only because I am convinced that they all still serve a genuine and essential purpose that I ask for their continuance for another six months.
I am well aware that there is a contrary view that the temporary powers are an irritant rather than an emollient, tending to increase the opposition to the forces of law and order and to encourage disrespect for the law. I recognise that this is no frivolous argument; and, in any event, I have the strongest natural inclination to revert to using ordinary legal provisions as soon as possible when the security situation allows.
Among those who have recommended vigorously to me that a start should be made on this process now are the members of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. They have recommended, as, indeed, they
1100
did last May, that two provisions of the Act should now be allowed to lapse. I have given much thought to their arguments, because they come from Northern Ireland's appointed guardians of human rights. The first of these provisions concerns detention—section 12 of the Act. As the House knows, this has not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975. I very much hope that we shall not have to introduce it again. That hope is not universally shared in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in this country. There are those who consider that it would be the answer to our problems. That is not the Government's view. But I cannot dismiss, as a practical matter, the possibility that the Government might find it necessary in the future, however reluctantly, to reintroduce detention. While that possibility remains, however dimly—and at a time when there is no marked improvement in the security situation—it would be foolish to allow the provision to lapse. However, the reality is that the weapon of detention is not being used today.
The second issue raised by the advisory commission, with regard to bail, is a much narrower one, though in legal terms it is rather more complex. The commission wants section 2(2) of the Act to be allowed to lapse. That section provides that, before granting bail in a terrorist case, a judge must be satisfied on certain points. They are that the accused will comply with his bail conditions, and that he will not interfere with witnesses or commit any offence while on bail. The commission is concerned that the provision breaches the principle that a man should be treated as innocent until he is proved guilty. But I do not believe that the way in which the courts apply the terms of this subsection in practice supports that assertion. The Northern Ireland courts are deeply conscious of the rights of the individual and, where they consider the grant of bail justified, they grant it. In current conditions, I believe that I would be remiss if I gave them any encouragement not to look most closely before granting bail at such questions as the likelihood of interference with witnesses or of further terrorist offences being committed.
I want to mention briefly one other point which the commission has made to me. It is a suggestion for an amendment of the Act, not for the dropping of

1101
any provision. Amendment, of course, is not possible under the procedure for renewing the temporary provisions of the Act but would require a separate amending Bill. The commission has suggested that section 8, which deals with the admissibility of statements made to the police, should be amended. The section provides that a statement should be excluded in any case where there is prima facie evidence that an accused was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make that statement. The commission wants the Act to make it clear that the unlawful use or threat of physical violence of any sort will also result in the exclusion of a statement. I assure the House that I would not, for a moment, take issue with the commission on this point.
My attitude toward the suggested amendment is an essentially practical one. It is evident from their rulings that the courts already use their discretion to ensure that the Act is broadly intepreted to cover the point the commission makes. There is, therefore, no practical need to amend the provision and, since the Government have no plans to introduce any other amendment to the Act, I do not feel that I would be justified in putting forward an amending Bill solely to deal with this matter.
The advisory commission is continuing its study of emergency legislation and I look forward to receiving its further comments. I am conscious of having disappointed its hopes, but I assure both the commission and the House that I do not ask lightly for the renewal of emergency powers.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Is the Secretary of State aware that his dismal remarks this afternoon will adversely affect the morale of Ulster people? For 10 long years they have suffered terrible, cruel provacation, violence and agony. When will the Government show that they will defeat the Provisional IRA? With all the statistics quoted this afternoon and those in newspapers and elsewhere, it is clear that the order does not secure, and does not help to secure, the defeat of the Provisional IRA. We need stronger, sterner measures.
Mr. Atkins: Of course, the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. I ask the House to renew the emergency powers,
1102
and I have given the House an account of how the Government seek to operate them. I know that the hon. Gentleman has his own views on the matter and we shall be interested to hear them.
The hard fact is that the powers which I ask the House to renew need to be available. I accept immediately that emergency powers are repugnant in a democracy. Neither the Government nor this House would want to have them unless we were sure that they were necessary. The burden of proof must be on us to show that they are needed. There is no question but that we now have many more terrorists behind bars. Thanks to the efforts of the security forces, violence has been contained at a level dramatically lower than that which prevailed only a few years ago.
But we cannot and must not be complacent. Recent events indicate that the terrorists still have the capacity to kill and wound innocent people—respected members of the community serving that community in many capacities—in the Armed Forces, the police service and the prison service. The terrorists have the capacity to destroy commercial premises by pointless acts of sabotage. Even one such attack would be intolerable and in recent days we have seen far too many.
Her Majesty's Government and the security forces remain totally committed to unceasing efforts against criminal terrorism. We need the powers in the emergency provisions Act for that purpose. That is why I ask the House today to renew those powers for a further six months.
4.39 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: We are debating not only the grave security position in Northern Ireland but the renewal of an order and of an Act on which that order is based. There are three questions that the House should ask itself before agreeing to that renewal.
First, do the circumstances in Northern Ireland, including the number of terrorist incidents, warrant the extension of emergency provisions? Secondly, do the provisions in the Act enable terrorist offences to be dealt with as ordinary crimes as far as possible? I am sure that the Secretary of State places great stress on the fact that "terrorist crimes" are crimes against the State, and they are just as much

1103
crimes as any others. If possible, our law should be designed to deal with such crimes in the same way as with other crimes. Thirdly, and most importantly, are all the provisions of the Act necessary to fulfil that purpose?
It is distressing that the number of killings, woundings and bombings is still far too great. The incidents vary from the mass killing of soldiers to picking out for attack members of the various branches of the forces who uphold law and order. We have seen a re-emergence of tit-for-tat killings, which are alike in their brutality and inhumanity and are indefensible for whatever reasons they are committed. Whoever commits an act of terrorism, for whatever reason cannot be seen to be making a serious political point. Ready and unhesitating resort to violence does not advance or ennoble any political cause.
There are differing views in the House about the working of the Act and the order and as to the way in which terrorism would best be tackled. However, I do not believe that any hon. Member would dissent from condemning violence. As the Secretary of State said, to date this year there have been 104 deaths from terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland. Although that is a quarter of the rate at the height of the troubles, it nevertheless equals the murder rate for England and Wales, which together have a population 30 times as large as Northern Ireland. That figure gives us some idea of the scale of the problem and emphasises the fact that there appears to be no immediate end in sight.
I believe that there is no purely military solution, but neither is there a purely political one, which is a trap that people fall into from time to time. Vigorous, fair and impartial upholding of the law under the primacy of the police must be combined with steady work towards acceptable political initiatives, and the widespread political changes throughout Ireland will cause uncertain reactions from the men of violence. What is the Prime Minister's or the Secretary of State's intention about seeking an early meeting with the new Taoiseach in order to continue the dialogue on cross-border security begun with the previous Taoiseach? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)
1104
interrupts from a sedentary position. As always, I am fascinated by what he has to say and I hope that he will repeat his remarks from an upright position.
I believe that the emergency provisions should be renewed, although I am reluctant about that, as every hon. Member should be. It is a necessity but one that we should not gloat over.
My second question was whether we need all the measures provided in the Act to deal with the emergency. In the main, I believe that we do, and I therefore support the Government in asking for renewal of these powers.
The main difference in the law in Northern Ireland from the criminal law in the remainder of the United Kingdom is the provision for trial without jury for certain scheduled offences. Juries are rightly looked on as the cornerstone of our legal system, yet the possible strain on jurors is obvious through intimidation or the threat of intimidation by those organised in the way that they are in Northern Ireland. It would also be a grave additional burden on the police to guard such jurors. There are differences in the law between the Republic of Ireland and ourselves, but when faced with the same basic problem we reach the same fundamental conclusion—that trial by jury for certain classes of offence is impossible.
In fairness to the judiciary in Northern Ireland, I acknowledge that, although unusual, this form of trial is just and enables a fair hearing to take place. We should pay tribute not only to the forces of law and order, which I unstintingly do, but also to the members of the judiciary who carry out a difficult job in Northern Ireland with the highest integrity and complete impartiality.
I emphasise the need to treat these crimes as ordinary crimes, and I believe that we should move towards normalising the law in that regard. An article in The Sunday Times last Sunday highlighted the fact that of all the things that are hurtful and insulting to a terrorist, his conviction as a criminal is the greatest, and that is why terrorists renew and maintain their calls for political status. We must maintain our view that their political beliefs do not excuse crimes of terrorism, and the Secretary of State was right to say that we should make no

1105
concession on that. They are criminals and should be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law.
These are emergency powers and, of their nature, such measures are intended to be short term. However, there is a danger that they are becoming a permanent feature of our life and law. We are in an unusual situation, which we concede by renewing the orders, but we must work as hard as possible to normalise the criminal law so that people who commit crimes can be dealt with on the same fundamental basis.
The Secretary of State has the advantage of advice from the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which has for some time been examining the matter. In May 1979 it issued a press statement on part of the Act and will eventually make a comprehensive statement. The purpose of the commission is to advise the Secretary of State, but will he ask the commission to publish its report so that Parliament and the public may see its judgment on the working of the Act and also the detailed arguments that led to recommendations to amend or maintain the existing law? Without that, there is a danger that we shall lay ourselves open to the two criticisms of those who suggest change.
Their first criticism is that we are being irresponsible and risk crippling the Act by making careless suggestions about amendment. The second is that such suggestions are made in ignorance of the position in Northern Ireland. Neither of those charges can be levelled against the commission, which is well aware of the situation in Northern Ireland. The Government do not have to accept the recommendations of the commission, and that is a judgment for them, but if they do not, the House is entitled to know the detailed reasons. With all the good will that the Secretary of State has exuded towards the commission this afternoon, I fear that, apart from matters of judgment—and these are very fine matters to be weighed up—he really has not given the House reasons for his rejection of the three amendments suggested in its interim report and in the press release that was issued in May 1979.
Let me refresh the memory of the House about those three suggestions touched
1106
upon by the Secretary of State. First is the power of the Secretary of State to detain suspected terrorists under section 12 and schedule 1 of the Act. As he has said, this has not been used since 1975 and is obviously regarded by Ministers as the very last resort. Nevertheless, it is still on the statute book, and the argument which lay behind the reasoning of the advisory commission was that it robs us a little of our argument that we should treat terrorists as criminals in the ordinary sense, if we still have a power, although not used, on the statute book which enables them to be detained without trial.
A decision to reimpose the powers would obviously be taken in an urgent and serious situation where some haste was indicated, but I agree with the Secretary of State that non-use of the powers commands majority support, although, I accept, not the unanimous support, of people both in the House and in Northern Ireland itself. It is very difficult to believe that the powers could again be reimposed without Parliament expressing a view upon it. Why not, therefore, take the section out of the Act, knowing that if a majority in Parliament approved of the powers being reimposed they could certainly be enacted very quickly? We in this House, in times of emergency, are used to enacting legislation fairly quickly and therefore I do not believe that a reenactment of the section need provide the obstacle that the Secretary of State obviously sees it in. I hope that he will reconsider the matter, even at this stage.
The second matter is the section dealing with bail, section 2(2), which basically reverses what is now accepted as being the ordinary criminal law under the Bail Act 1976, namely, that a person accused of a crime is entitled to bail unless the prosecution is able to show one of the grounds set out in schedule 1 of that Act, namely, that he will fail to surrender to custody, will commit an offence whilst on bail, will interfere with witnesses or will otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
Therefore, it is not the lapsing of the powers which I seek, because I agree with the Secretary of State that to allow the power to lapse without putting anything in its place would probably be ineffective. To that extent, I disagree with the commission; but we should now consider amending the Act in this second regard, namely, to put in the traditional and

1107
otherwise universal presumption for bail, and leave it up to the prosecution to satisfy the judge or magistrates that the person should be denied bail.
Certainly there is everything in schedule 1 of the Bail Act providing that if a person has a serious crime charge against him or has known associates who are criminals and so on bail can be refused. I do not believe, however, that it should or can be healthy for it to be presumed that in such circumstances alone within the United Kingdom it should be up to the person charged to prove his bona fides before being allowed bail.
Thirdly, the commission called for the redrafting of section 8 of the Act, which deals with statements made by the accused. There is no doubt that the question of interrogation of witnesses and the use of statements made by them, obtained during the course of that interrogation, has become a very controversial subject in recent years, which led to consideration being given to it by the Bennett committee, and acceptance by the Secretary of State of a large number of that committee's recommendations. If the Minister who replies has time to deal with that point, I would welcome a progress report upon the implementation of those recommendations because clearly part of the reason for opting to maintain section 8 as it exists must be that the Government are taking steps to see that the incidents referred to in the Bennett Report are not resuscitated or repeated.
I believe that the Bennett report has not satisfied everybody, to put it mildly. For example, at its recent conference the SDLP passed a resolution asking for an impartial inquiry into interrogation and the use of statements. The commission itself criticises the formula used in section 8, which is taken from the European convention, as being unsatisfactory and imprecise. As the Secretary of State has said, the Bennett committee makes it clear that judges have also used their inherent powers to exclude statements if they have been given under duress or by reason of inducement, although that is not in the section itself.
The House will know that the Judges' Rules are under criticism from many sections of the community precisely because they are not enshrined in statute and
1108
possibly because they give too wide a discretion to the judge as to the admissibility in evidence of statements taken in circumstances some of which infringe normal Judges' Rules. In my view, that is why the commission suggests redrafting the section. I believe we ought to take it very seriously. As is clear from paragraph 78 of the Bennett report, there is very serious concern amongst lawyers and others in Northern Ireland about the burden of proof in circumstances which fall under section 2(2).
The Secretary of State has said that the use that the judges make of their inherent powers means that, in practice, perhaps not quite as much need for concern exists as has been shown. Nevertheless, where we have put into a statute part of the reasons why a statement should be excluded, we either have to go the whole hog and put them all into the statute, or we have wholly to exclude them, as is done in the Judges' Rules, and make them extra-statutory rules.
For that reason, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement that he does not propose to bring forward amending legislation, I urge him to reconsider that decision because it need be only a short measure which would have the good will of the House to pass it. But it would aid clarity as far as the accused person is concerned, and it would prevent misunderstanding among a great number of people who are otherwise of good will.
I hope that the Government will respond to these points. The Act certainly needs renewing and I hope that my hon. Friends will not seek to deny the Government that renewal; but I re-emphasise that we should be aiming for all time at the normalisation of this law, to make it accord as nearly as possible with the normal criminal law. If the Secretary of State listens to the three suggestions for amendment made by his own standing advisory commission, he will make a positive start towards that, and convince people that, although these emergency provisions are necessary, and we approve of them, we will as soon as possible hope to redress the balance and give the accused person a greater sense of justice than he at present feels.
5 pm
Mr. John McQuade: Since I last addressed this House, many

1109
more men and women, some of them my constituents, have been brutally murdered in Northern Ireland. A gang of thugs, without mercy or feelings, ravage my country, killing at will and spreading sorrow and desolation. I have said before and I say again that the first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and this the British Government are signally failing to do. They have not yet begun to come to terms with the problem. They still believe that there is some magic formula, some political arrangement, which will mysteriously allow these murdering monsters to put down their guns. They still believe that they must not punish wrongdoers with the severity that they deserve. They can provoke even greater wrongdoing.
Have the Government learnt nothing over the past 10 years, or is it that they just have not got the moral resolution, the guts, to govern? They boast about their refusal even to give in to the threat of violence, but in fact they are coming to terms with violence—and not just in Northern Ireland. This is a lesson that the Provisional IRA is learning.
Why do not the Government assess their own worth and record? If they have not the ability to control part of their own country, they should have the honesty to admit it and leave it to those who can, and those who could do so, before their woolly-headedness and their stupid blunders make the country virtually ungovernable. If the Government think that they have the ability, then, in the name of the increasing thousands of our bereaved, they should govern—do it.
The Government should rid themselves of the silly notion that a political solution will come before a military solution, which just means that the demands of a minority in our community must be met before the majority can sleep safely in their beds at night.
The Government must stop looking with effeminate nervousness over their shoulders to see how ill-informed people, sometimes outsiders, are reacting to their words. They should learn what the problems are and they should have the courage to deal with them. Their reluctance to do so is causing the loss of life that, day after day, plagues our community.
I do not propose today to weary the House by reciting once more what should
1110
be done to curb the indiscriminate terror. I shall not participate in what is only a bitter pantomime by solemnly repeating the Government's obvious failings in the security field. To do so would give the impression that the problem is one only to be talked about and not solved. To do so would be to betray the urgency of the crisis and to misrepresent my people.
Do the Government know that their action, their obtuseness, their vacillation and their cowardice cause them to be held in contempt by thousands upon thousands of the Queen's loyal citizens? If they do not have the courage to act like a Government, at least let them have the guts to act like men.
In 1940 the Royal Fusiliers, of which I was a member, were stationed on the French-Belgian border. We came back through Dunkirk. Where were we placed?—none other than the only place in which England was invaded, Hastings.
I say here and now that we should cut out this willy-nilly stuff. Get in and get the Provos.
5.5 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: I must say how glad I am to speak after the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade). I agree with so much of what he said in highlighting the dangers inherent in the so-called political initiatives. I hope that he is expressing those reservations to certain members of his own party who are only too willing to participate in the games that he described to us.
Mr. McQuade: That includes the hon. Gentleman, if he is a terrorist.
Mr. McCusker: May I continue by suggesting that the hon. Gentleman should address some of his remarks to the deputy leader of his own party, the Rev. William Beattie, who had the nerve to tell the people of Northern Ireland a few weeks ago that he could see a glimmer of light in the security situation for the first time in 10 years. The only glimmers of light that people in Northern Ireland have seen over the past few months have been the reflections from the fires in the business premises in Lisburn, Dungannon, Newry, Omagh, Londonderry and Warren point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those comments to the House, I hope that he will make some

1111
of them to the deputy leader of his own party. Then his party will not be accused of speaking with a forked tongue on this issue.
Mr. Peter Robinson Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) rose—
Mr. McCusker: We shall no doubt hear before this debate is over assertions made by some people that these powers are not needed. There might even be a Division at the end, in which people will vote to say that these powers are not needed. If anyone thinks that, he should come to my constituency and talk not only to my supporters but also to those on both sides of the religious divide, to the parents of the two teenage Roman Catholic boys who were killed by the IRA in March this year and to the families of those other innocent Roman Catholics who were murdered by the IRA in the Crossmaglen and Forkhill areas, because they obviously did not agree with the actions of that organisation.
The Secretary of State candidly admitted that there had been a deterioration in the security situation. He said that it was perhaps slight in some areas. But it certainly is not slight in County Armagh. Over the past few years we had some hopes that there had been a slight improvement, even in my border constituency. In 1977, 11 people were killed; in 1978, 15 people were killed; in 1979, to date, 27 people have been killed. In saying that 15 of those have been killed since the change of Government, I would mention to the right hon. Gentleman, with all due respect, that the deterioration in the security situation throughout the Province has occurred primarily since the change of Government. Nineteen of the 27 people killed have been members of the security forces. A quarter of the total number of people killed in Northern Ireland were killed in County Armagh. One-third of the security forces killed this year in Northern Ireland were killed in County Armagh.
I suppose it should not surprise us, when we hear statistics such as those, that some people in Northern Ireland are only too glad to rush to find comfort in a conference. They are encouraged by bishops, lawyers and politicians from the Alliance Party and other parties into be-
1112
lieving that this conference will, somehow or other, resolve the security situation and bring peace. Those are almost the words that are used. In reality this is likely to worsen the situation. Worst of all, it provides a smokescreen which diverts attention from the real problem as described by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. It allows this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic to abdicate their responsibilities.
It also allows the SDLP the luxury of being the most important political party in Northern Ireland at the moment, and at the same time to be the most irresponsible, by refusing to give support to the security forces and, by its members' rhetoric, justifying the foul deeds of the Provisional IRA. If anyone disputes that, I refer him to speeches made in recent months by Seamus Mallon, the deputy leader of the SDLP, and to statements made by Michael Canavan, its so-called spokesman on law and order.
A few weeks ago I received a letter from a soldier who has served on the South Armagh border for some months. As well as demanding "better generals",
"officers who did not think that the Army was up against boy-scouts",
and "better grub", he stated:
"We are not issued with good binoculars."
I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of these observations, because the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to take further action. The soldier said that on occasion he and his colleagues had to purchase telescopes and binoculars for their own use. He also reminded me of a fact that I had forgotten and that the House may not know, namely, that helicopters in use in border areas are not armed and cannot be used in offensive actions. Considering the frequency with which helicopters pursue terrorists and watch them finding sanctuary in the Republic, perhaps we should employ what the soldier requests, namely helicopters armed with Browning machine guns.
The soldier also claimed, no doubt from personal experience, that:
"The IRA are still getting detonators from England"
and that soldiers had been shot at with
"factory-fresh bullets".
Three or four years ago, when terrorism was at its worst, there was a concerted

1113
drive to ensure that the source of detonators dried up. Action was taken on munitions and so on. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure us that the drive is continuing and that the action spearheaded by his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) will also continue.
The soldier concluded by saying that what were needed were, as I have said before, far more secret observation posts along the South Armagh border and the proper use of the SAS in the area. Nowhere in his letter did he place any reliance on co-operation from the authorities on the other side of the border. He was being more realistic than his military or political masters. Events of the past week should have convinced everyone how right he was.
The change of Prime Minister in the Irish Republic was brought about primarily because of Mr. Lynch's agreement with the British Prime Minister, and none of us should underestimate that fact. Any hon. Member who does not accept that should read the reports in the Irish press over the past three or four months. They show the build up of pressure which ultimately led to Mr. Lynch's resignation.
As a frontline representative whose constituency will, no doubt, be the first to feel the effects of Mr. Charles Haughey's premiership, I take no comfort in assurances given in Dublin at the weekend or condemnations of the IRA and violence.
What I and my constituents heard and will remember were the raucous calls for
"the unification of the people of Ireland"
and the demand for my Government to encourage unity in Ireland and
"to declare their intention to withdraw"
and betray the majority of British citizens who live in the Province.
It is no consolation to us to be assured by Mr. Haughey and others that that is to be achieved by peaceful means. Those assertions are the clear and unambiguous objectives of the Provisional IRA. To those who declare that such comments are not an encouragement to terrorists, let me quote some words with which Mr. Haughey should be familiar since they were spoken by his co-defendant John Kelly at the arms trial in Dublin in 1970.
1114
In explanation of his behaviour in the gun-running episode, John Kelly said:
"Dr. Hillery, the Minister for External Affairs, had gone to the United Nations and stated 'The claim of Ireland, the claim of the Irish nation to control the totality of Ireland has been asserted over the centuries by successive generations of Irishmen and women and it is one which no spokesman of the Irish nation could ever renounce'. And Taoiseach Lynch in what has become known as his 'We will not stand idly by' speech said"—
At that stage, John Kelly was interrupted by the judge, but he was obviously about to quote a statement by Mr. Lynch that was similar to that issued by Dr. Hillery. After explaining that to the judge, Mr. Kelly continued:
"It was in this situation, in these circumstances and against this background of speeches by people, political figures in authority in this part of Ireland, speeches which had led the Six County minority to believe sincerely that a new era was dawning"
that he had decided to embark on training and gun-running for those people.
Mr. John Kelly was a militant Republican and I suggest that his mentality is that of the Provisional IRA. Speeches give encouragement to terrorists, speeches justify terrorist acts and speeches can kill. They have killed nearly 2,000 people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, the weekend's "king maker", also made some comments to the people of Northern Ireland. He said:
"Every index you look at is better in the South than in the North—agricultural development, unemployment, wages, manufacturing output."
He held out those inducements to the people of Northern Ireland as an encouragement to them to seek their place in an all-Ireland Republic. Those words are based on the false assumption that the primary motivation of an Ulster Unionist is his economic well-being. There is a lot more than that to an Ulster Unionist. Mr. O'Kennedy and Mr. Haughey will learn in the years ahead that their view is a gross misconception.
The index that we study in County Armagh is that for death and destruction, much of which emanates from the Irish Republic, as Government statistics prove. We look at the rapidly diminishing Protestant population in the Republic, killed by kindness no doubt, and ask

1115
what future is there for us in an all-Ireland Republic.
5.17 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, because, as he said it was not the entirely gloomy statement about the year's security activity that we might have feared. Indeed, one cannot help feeling that, but for the appalling casualties at Warrenpoint, my right hon. Friend's statement would have been similar to the statement on security activities last year.
Since the parents of Colonel David Blair, who lost his life at Warrenpoint, live in my constituency, perhaps I may say that all the incidents in which members of the security forces have lost their lives underline the incredible devotion to duty that police and soldiers have shown throughout the past 10 years and which commands our praise whenever we refer to it.
My right hon. Friend referred to the improvement in the numbers in the RUC and the improvement in police accommodation. Can he tell me whether the Army has fared as well? A few months ago we were told that soldiers were still stationed in temporary accommodation that provided them with the bare minimum of creature comforts. Are they now in premises more like Army barracks, rather than in parish halls and other converted premises?
I have to ask whether the panoply of powers provided by the emergency provisions Act meets the simple needs of soldiers facing a screaming group of hooligans—perhaps a mob of children—stoning them and throwing missiles. Those soldiers do not have the Riot Act to fall back on and are left wondering how they should meet such a problem. We often refer to "reading the Riot Act", but I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the Riot Act was repealed in 1973. The onus therefore, is on the security forces to prove that they are coping with a riot.
We then come up against the definition of what is riotous behaviour. I suggest that the young soldier holding his security shield above his head and facing a screaming mob of hooligans armed with bricks, bottles, implements and other missiles must wonder whether he is coping
1116
with a riot. He must wonder exactly what is his legal position. That point has been raised by a senior officer who served in Northern Ireland. He said that we may think that we have given our security forces all the powers that they need, but we may conceivably have left them with an Achilles heel. That might cause them more concern and place them in greater danger of criticism than many of the other powers that they possess.
Does the Secretary of State believe that the security forces are adequately covered in that context, or is there a need for a new Riot Act to meet the present dimension of terrorism?
Having discussed the Army, I turn my attention to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, for which I have nothing but praise. With the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to Sir Kenneth Newman who proved to be an outstanding Chief Constable.
I listened to what the Secretary of State said about community relations. Surely none of us doubts that if the gap between the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland could be bridged and their wounds healed peace might come to the Province more quickly than we might dare to imagine. At present the Royal Ulster Constabulary can spare only 100 policemen for this vital job. Has the Secretary of State given thought to the creation of a group of people trained in this work who might be attached to the police? In his desire to recruit up to 7,000 men, is he laying emphasis on the sort of people who might play a constructive role in that task. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the number of detectives available for work with the RUC?
Sir Kenneth Newman reorganised the CID but are there sufficient detectives to carry out the vital job of catching terrorists? By the same token, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the forensic and surveillance techniques available to the RUC? I ask these questions because the mere renewal of emergency powers will not be enough unless the men on the ground have the necessary back-up to enable them to do their work as efficiently as their numbers allow.
A fortnight ago we debated the working paper on new government for Northern Ireland. When presenting that paper to the House, the Secretary of State said

1117
that political devolution of a kind was sought for the Province but he did not suggest that it could be the political initiative—the philosopher's stone—that we have all looked for to end the violence in Northern Ireland. I commended the Secretary of State for what he said. Tonight we are debating the continuing terrorist campaign which has disfigured the Province and which in a sense is at the core of the future of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.
Some years ago people thought that political moves might buy off the terrorists and satisfy some of their political aspirations while still keeping the Province within the United Kingdom. None of us holds that view 10 years later. We wonder why the terrorists continue to cling to the view that the killing of their fellow men and women will persuade the British Government to change their view that if Northern Ireland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom it should be allowed to do so.
If we look back over the last 10 years, what political success can the terrorists claim? In the last six or seven years there has been no advancement in their terms. Instead there has been a strengthening of the bond between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. When the extra Members of Parliament come to this Chamber from Northern Ireland in 1984, or whenever, that bond will become stronger and more realistic than it has been during the last 50 years.
As the terrorists survey the effects of their activities, what successes can they claim that should make them want to go on with their campaign of murder and destruction? Can it be the endless procession of funerals? Is it the burial of innocent men, women and children who wished to live in peace but had to live in Ulster? When the terrorists realise, as they must, that the dead are on both sides of the community, surely they must ask themselves whether a campaign of carnage is achieving anything. If I say that the corpses of those killed by terrorists bear silent witness to the words of the Pope at Drogheda in the summer, I think I say not less than the truth. The Pope said:
"Nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder. Let us remember that the word remains forever. All who take the sword will perish by the sword."
1118
Yet the Provisional IRA claims some moral sanction for what it does. It would like the world to believe that Northern Ireland was held within the United Kingdom by the force of arms and by the oppression of Westminster. As the Glover report said so eloquently in 1978–and without the IRA we might not have read its words—the Provisional IRA continues to justify its activities by claiming that it is merely reacting to the security forces and that violence is the only response to the repression of the Catholic Community in Northern Ireland.
That is the justification; the moral sanction, that the members of the IRA believe places them above the words of the Pope. For 10 years the IRA has been telling the world that this is the case. For 10 years, I suspect, that argument has not been properly answered. The Pope gave them the reply as he unmistakably warned them about violence. He also said in Ireland this summer:
"The struggle is not, despite what is so often repeated before world opinion, a religious struggle between Catholics and Protestants".
The Pope himself has destroyed the argument which the IRA claims gives it the moral sanction for what its members do. As it continues its campaign the press and the media continue to report it. I suggest that the media sometimes report the doings of the IRA in a style that denies the strength of the Pope's view that the struggle is not between Catholics and Protestants, although it is depicted as such before world opinion.
The IRA goes about its business and succeeds in maintaining the strength of violence as a result of propaganda coverage throughout the world. Brigadier Glover stated in his conclusions:
"Propaganda considerations will frequently dictate Provisional IRA strategy, both in avoiding action that would alienate public opinion and in mounting spectacular attacks that would capture the press headlines."
Of course, he is right. What must we do about it?
I have examined the type of material that the Central Office of Information issues, particularly in North America, about events and incidents in Northern Ireland. I assumed that the COI would put across the case for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I am sorry to say that, although the COI sends out much press material, it seems to rely

1119
exclusively on press releases of the type which can be found in the box in the Library under the heading "Northern Ireland press reports."
Are the people of North America interested in the parochial events of Northern Ireland? Surely, when we are faced with a propaganda campaign, brilliantly orchestrated by the IRA on what it believes to be a sympathetic Irish audience in North America, we should think in terms of presenting the case for Northern Ireland with rather more skill than that involved in sending out press releases to American newspapers on the off chance that they will use them. Even when they use them, all that appears is a factual report of an event.
Large arms hauls are still being discovered in the North and South of Ireland. Money comes in from the organisations in North America which mistakenly believe, unlike the Pope, that this is a battle between Catholics and Protestants. Is it not time for the Government to initiate a public relations campaign in North America, not only to present the facts about certain events in the Province, but to shape public opinion in order once and for all to kill the view that Northern Ireland is all but the last colony left in the British Empire, and that if it were not for the bayonets of British soldiers, Northern Ireland would be away as quick as it could go? Something more effective than an endless succession of press releases is required. I hope that the Secretary of State will ask the head of the COI to examine the present approach with a view to improving it.
We were all shocked when we heard that it was possible that the BBC "Panorama" team had found an opportunity to film the IRA and was willing to enter into an agreement with IRA personnel in Carrick more. Subsequently the BBC conducted an exhaustive investigation into what happened. I regret that it was an internal inquiry, but we are told that the BBC is now satisfied that the original story that we read on the tapes was not the correct version of what happened.
It is not for me to say whether that is correct. Suffice it to say that I trust the BBC to show the impartiality which it should show as the national broadcast-
1120
ing corporation, and to carry out an inquiry to relieve any doubts that may continue to exist that the BBC was prepared to do a deal with enemies of the State.
Mr. John Dunlop: As the Member of Parliament for the Carrick-more area, may I say that I did not react as violently as some because the IRA often carries out such operations in my constituency and in other areas. The IRA has carried out road checks unhindered on the main road through the Glenshane Pass on the way to Londonderry. Possibly the BBC team was lucky in that it happened to be in Carrickmore and was able to report one such incident. Not long ago I travelled through the village of Greencastle in County Tyrone. Five minutes later the IRA mounted a patrol and checked the traffic on the way to Omagh.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, even if it was slightly surprising. From what the hon. Member has said, the BBC seems to be absolutely in the clear. In those circumstances, I wish that it would publish the report.
Two issues spring from this. First, the team apparently did not tell the controller in Northern Ireland that it planned to do a programme on the IRA. If it did not, why did it not? Whatever justification might be used, we must remember that the IRA has stated its wish to destroy the link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and that it is prepared to pursue that policy by any means. The IRA should not gain the co-operation of a body as prestigious as the BBC, which is funded by the British taxpayer.
Secondly, what thought do the British media give to the effects of their reporting? If no thought is given to how reports may affect what happens in Northern Ireland, is it not time that the editors, news editors, and producers met the Secretary of State to hear how he sees the situation and how they can help to bring peace to the Province?
I am slightly shocked by the intervention by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. There are 14,000 British soldiers—sorry, soldiers—6,500 police and 7,000 UDR men, and yet the hon. Member says that many parts of the Province do not have a security presence of a kind

1121
which makes it impossible for IRA men to mount road blocks and to set up an incident in Carrickmore for the BBC, during which we saw a couple of men strolling down the road with guns in their hands.
We are renewing the emergency provisions. Surely we can be assured that when continuing these draconian powers there is not a corner in Northern Ireland which is not under the surveillance of the security forces—a corner where no IRA man can sport his illegality in the way described by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the hon. Member sits down, I should like him to clarify a point; I may have misunderstood what he said. He mentioned British soldiers and then said, "No, soldiers". Surely they are British soldiers. Ulster is British and part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that interjection. I left out the word "British" because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems to me that they are as much the soldiers of Northern Ireland as they are of the rest of the United Kingdom. I should add that I was in a British regiment that happened to be called the Royal Irish Fusiliers. We thought of ourselves as British soldiers, and that is why I made my remarks.
5.40 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I will not pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the particular BBC "Panorama" programme, but it is fair to say, looking at the other side of the coin, that a great many of those in the BBC who present programmes on Northern Ireland agonise over what they should or should not do. There are certainly many within the BBC who, hour after hour, wrestle with their consciences about how they should present difficult events. So the blanket castigation which is made of the BBC is less than fair.
I make no apology for intruding on a Northern Ireland debate for the second time in three weeks. I am entitled to note, with a certain sadness, that this House is not much fuller today when it is considering what, heavens knows, must be
1122
one of the most urgent and domestic questions facing the House of Commons. I can perhaps be forgiven for saying that in the past—possibly we are all guilty—these debates have been far too internal, though that is certainly not the fault of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), I do not think that any of us ask lightly for the renewal of these emergency powers. Ten years ago I was among those who, rightly or wrongly, went to plead with the then Secretary of State for Defence—indeed, other Ministers in my own Government, not least the Prime Minister—not to send the Army to Northern Ireland. I claim no great foresight, but we saw that it was one thing to put an army in and it was quite another to pull an army out—altogether less easy.
Since that time, how often have we been told that we should be patient and wait for a bit, and that a solution was just round the corner? How often have we been told not to open our mouths too wide and not to make things more difficult?
The hon. Member for Newbury and others, are entitled to say that for over a decade of our political lives we have been reticent and guarded and have said that such matters are better left to other people. That, perhaps, is the mood of many Members of the House. It is a modest and by no means dishonourable feeling that these intractable problems are better left to others and that anything we say can only make matters worse and not better.
It is with a certain reluctance that I speak on Northern Ireland matters. I can understand that, in some quarters, there might well be resentment of those who are not constant visitors to the Province talking about what are the day-to-day affairs of those who have the burden of representing whatever party they represent in Northern Ireland, that troubled Province.
I ask the Minister who will be winding up the debate this question. It refers to something said by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said that the argument that temporary powers are an irritant is not "a frivolous argument". I am glad that the Secretary of State

1123
made that point, because there are some of us who want to choose our words and thoughts very carefully but who nevertheless feel that after more than 10 years we have a right—not in strident, but in very quiet and gentle terms—to say to Government Ministers "Are we sure that the presence of the British soldier in Northern Ireland is not a counterproductive irritant?
I am tempted to raise that at present precisely because the Secretary of State himself raised the question in his opening speech. However, I make it clear that I have nothing but admiration for the young soldiers of the Army stationed in Northern Ireland. They often face the most appalling provocations and are often taunted not only by teenagers, but by very young teenagers. I do not think that anyone in his right mind would regard the situation that they face as other than desperate.
I was talking to a constituent in Bath-gate the other day, who had been a sergeant-major in the Seaforth Highlanders in Malaya in the middle to late 1940s. He said to me "Do you realise that what my son who is serving in Northern Ireland goes through is far worse than anything that I went through in Malaya?"
There is no doubt that those who serve us in Northern Ireland deserve our highest regard for their personal courage on what may be the fifth, sixth or seventh tour of duty. It is one thing when someone of one faction or another, born in Northern Ireland, dies, but I think that my Northern Ireland colleagues will agree that it is a rather different thing when a British soldier dies. On that side of the water the British soldier is anonymous. He is just another British soldier, and whatever heartache his death may cause in London, Edinburgh or one of the villages that many of us represent—like many other hon. Members I have had to talk to mothers of soldiers aged 18 or 20 years who have had to lay down their lives in Northern Ireland—it does not have the same effect on the Northern Ireland communities as the death of a local person.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Could I respond to that, because I happen to be the Member of Parliament for the
1124
constituency in which the soldiers were murdered at Warrenpoint? I can assure the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the House that, if anything, my constituents showed greater horror, resentment and anger when that occurred than they do at the repeated incidents which affect their own towns, townsmen and relatives. That is the fact. That is how it happened.
Mr. Dalyell: I can say sincerely that I am glad to be put right on this point by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—sotto voce from the Front Bench—who was in the Army and who has had ministerial experience in Northern Ireland.
I recall visiting the women's prison in Armagh with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). I will put the reaction that I received in exactly the terms that it was put to us. A young girl of 19 years of age of the Provisional IRA—I cannot imitate the Irish accent so I will not try—said "Ah, if Mr. Paisley was Prime Minister that would be all right by us provided you Brits got out." I do not know for how many that young lady spoke, but I ask this question—it is a fair question to put after 10 years, and it was put by the Secretary of State—to what extent is the presence of the British Army an irritant that makes the situation in Northern Ireland worse and not better?
I put it in a different way. Those hon. Members who have been to the Maze prison must be horrified, as I was, and regard it as a university or training ground for violence. Only this weekend we read in the press of an advertisement that was inserted which offered congratulations to X on "three years in a blanket." It is all a question of praising martyrs. It seems to me that this feeling of wallowing in martyrdom gains a momentum of its own. In these circumstances when will we see a light around the corner? It is not a question of giving in to violence—that is not the issue. Instead, we must face the brutal reality. I am quite prepared to be knocked down or rebuked on this matter, but I still wish to ask to what extent the presence of the British Army now acts, rightly or wrongly, as an irritant.

1125
I do not know much about the past work of Sir Maurice Oldfield, but I wonder whether it is really productive to appoint as a kind of supremo a man who has a history in the British security services. Some of us who have Celtic blood in our veins wonder whether this appointment, as seen by the Irish, of such a man with such a past will not create counterproductive feelings. This is regardless of Sir Maurice's competence. I see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) nodding. A number of us in the Labour Party have been reticent and have kept our mouths shut. We have not joined in the strident speechmaking and we have tried to be peace makers. Yet we were simply horrified by the provocative nature of such an appointment, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the gentleman in question.
If we continue to appoint such people to this kind of job, even those who are not dedicated to a particular view about what should happen in Northern Ireland may well be irritated. I am not English; I am a Scot and I know how irritating the English can be. In the very different circumstances of Northern Ireland from Scotland, might not the same feelings that are just pinpricks to the Scots be seen very differently by those in Northern Ireland bearing in mind the history of the Province?
I am not suggesting that we should wash our hands of the problem. If I thought that, I would not have sat through Northern Ireland debates as I have for many hours at a time. I would have kept my mouth shut and concentrated on other matters. That would have been much easier. I do not think we should wash our hands of this problem, but I suggest that it is perfectly respectable to believe that we, on this side of the water simply are not the right people for the job of bringing peace to Ireland.
This raises the related issue—the question of the military safety net. We think that we are imposing a military presence for the good and safety of many people in Ireland. Perhaps it will turn out that that so-called safety net is an irritant. When one goes to Northern Ireland one realises that it is a very different place from this side of the water. History and myth are omnipresent. As a Scot I must say quite bluntly that the British Army is often seen simply as the "English army".
1126
When the Secretary of State talks about irritants, what does he mean? We are faced with a bizarre situation which is epitomised by the physical presence of hon. Members in the House of Commons tonight. We see here a number of Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. Shortly their numbers will be increased to 17–quite rightly in my opinion. Yet we also see here five Ministers who represent English constituencies. Each of those Ministers is a good Member of Parliament; he has a good record, and he was no doubt chosen for his suitability for the task. I stress that I am not being patronising. Each one of those Ministers is flogging his guts out, as my colleagues did when they were in the Northern Ireland Office, but nevertheless they are English Ministers and they are in a position that is wholly different from their Scottish and Welsh counterparts.
How can I, as a Scot, say this? For many years many of us have thought that the Welsh had an enormous say in the running of the Labour Party. Scotland has had a whole succession of Government Ministers this century. For example, there have been two Scottish Prime Ministers—Ramsay MacDonald and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, now Lord Home of the Hirsel. Then there have been many Conservative Ministers with Scottish connections who have not represented Scottish constituencies—Mr. Harold Macmillan and the late Mr. Iain Macleod are but two examples. But the Northern Ireland situation is deeply different.
I end on a conciliatory and not too woolly note. Some of us think that, if the present situation continues for any length of time, there is a case, regardless of which party is successful in the elections, and with 17 representatives from Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, for two or three of these hon. Members being found posts in the Northern Ireland Office, if we are to have such an office. In a previous debate three weeks ago I questioned the pro-consular nature of the Northern Ireland Office. I am not criticising those who have served in the Northern Ireland Office, either under the previous Government or this Government, but the situation raises all sorts of questions. As a Scot I understand the kind of irritant which will produce a gut reaction which will end in disaster because of the

1127
very nature of the set-up. Let us face it—in the past five centuries the English have not had a particularly wonderful record in Ireland. This is a matter which must constantly be taken into account before we come to the dismal task of discussing the renewal of this order again in six months.
5.59 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: We are glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is present for the debate. I share his view that it is a disgrace that so few hon. Members are present for a debate that affects the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland. If we were debating Rhodesia, which is thousands of miles away, this place would no doubt be crowded. Because we are debating Northern Ireland, where violence has gone on for 10 years and where people have suffered from the activities of the Provisional IRA, there are few hon. Members here. Their absence shows a lack of sympathy for the long-suffering Ulster people and for the members of the security forces who, courageously and gallantly, day and night, do their best to maintain law and order in our stricken province.
The hon. Member for West Lothian agonised for some considerable time over the presence of British, or, as he went on to say, English troops in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman pondered on the possibility that the troops would be regarded as an irritant. I believe, in fact, he went further and was more positive, saying that they were an irritant to many people in Northern Ireland. What the hon. Gentleman and this House must realise is that the Provisional IRA certainly wants the Brits out. That is its slogan. It can be seen all over the place. There is a sign "Brits out" near the scene where Lord Mountbatten, the elderly lady, and those two young children, were slaughtered. I believe that sign is still there today, despite that atrocity. The Provisional IRA want the British forces out of Northern Ireland. When that has been achieved, their next slogan will be "Ulster Protestants out".
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the Pope's visit to Drogheda in Southern Ireland last year. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Pope's words in Drogheda when he
1128
condemned violence. As the Pope rightly said, murder was murder. Until the Pope's visit, such stern words were not heard from the Roman Catholic cardinal in Ireland. I believe that the hierarchy in any other country would not only have condemned the violence from the beginning but would also have taken active measures to help the Government of the day to bring violence to an end in their communities.
Judge what statements have been made. A statement was made by Father McManus that a holy war was being waged against Northern Ireland and the Ulster Protestants. Once British troops go, attempts will be made to drive out the Protestants. Anyone who believes that peace will be brought to Northern Ireland by the removal of British troops is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. There would be terrible slaughter of Ulster people—innocent people, Protestants, and any Roman Catholics who stood in the way of the evil men who, for too long, have had their way in Northern Ireland.
The House and the Government must realise that violence can only be brought to an end by stem measures. I had to interrupt the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland towards the end of his speech to point out that it was a dismal speech that would affect adversely the spirit of the people of Northern Ireland. I felt that whoever drafted the speech had gone through the speeches of every Secretary of State in successive Governments over the past 10 years. All the same expressions, all the clichés of the day, were contained in the speech. There was no comfort for the Ulster people. It is worth reminding the Secretary of State of what he did say. I do not think that he is truly conscious of what will be the effect of his speech on Ulster people who have lost friends and relatives or who have had relatives mutilated and businesses destroyed. I will give two or three examples.
Just as the hon. Member for West Lothian cannot put on an Irish accent, I cannot put on the English accent of the Secretary of State and my repetition of his remarks therefore loses impact. But the right hon. Gentleman, at one stage, said that we remain fixed in our resolve to restore normality to Northern Ireland. At another stage, he said words to the effect that the search for effective

1129
measures was continually being pursued. At another stage he said that we must not be complacent. Later the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were totally committed to unceasing efforts to defeat the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
These expressions have been uttered time after time. But people have continued to die in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to mouth those expressions, to think that they will give any comfort to the people of Northern Ireland and to believe that they frighten the Provisional IRA.
The Provisional IRA laugh at such remarks. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), the Provisional IRA, with impunity, set up road blocks in different parts of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newbury was astounded. The hon. Gentleman is a good friend of Northern Ireland and has paid many visits to the Province. If he seems not to be aware of what happens, the Government will not be aware, either, that one can travel throughout Northern Ireland and sometimes never see a soldier or a policeman in many areas. If the police and soldiers are not to be seen, the evil men will come out from beneath the stones and try to terrorise individual communities where they enjoy some sympathy, perhaps, from a certain section of the population.
I suggest that the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office get rid of their police escort and travel round the Province in a small unmarked car. They will realise what farmers are facing in isolated areas. They will realise that business people, ordinary people, members of the UDR, police and prison warders, going about their daily lives and doing their job for the Ulster people, are dying because the Government are ignorant of the fact that there is little or no law and order in various parts of the Province.
This Government stand condemned by reason of every death that has taken place in the Province this year. It is no use the Government washing their hands and the Secretary of State saying at one stage—it was a remarkable expression—that the situation is not a great deal worse than in 1978. Any man who utters that expression should be run out of Northern Ire-
1130
land. The right hon. Gentleman made a full admission of his failure, as other Governments have failed in the past, by stating, at the beginning of his speech, that, in his analysis, he would seek to avoid two traps—one of saying that the IRA was on the run—we know that is not true, anyway—and the other of saying that the IRA was not being defeated.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has made some stirring comments about the Secretary of State and what he alleges was my right hon. Friend's use of clichés. I would gracefully point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has used a cliché. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the need for "stern measures." Northern Ireland is an area of about 10,000 square miles with a population of about 1,500,000. The hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a limit to the amount of manpower or money that is available. This has been generously on offer so far. In the light of his stem comments to the Secretary of State, it would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman would interpret his own cliché of stern measures and say what exactly he has in mind.
Mr. Kilfedder: If the hon. Gentleman will persuade his Government to surrender their responsibilities for Northern Ireland, since they have already failed the Ulster people, I will help to give some security advice if I have the responsibility. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is no use my trying to advise the Secretary of State. He and his predecessors have ignored my advice and the advice of others over the years. I shall not repeat it now and then expect the Secretary of State to act. He has not acted. But if the hon. Genteman wishes me to set out my policy in detail, I can ask the Secretary of State to hand to him all the notes, memos and letters and, indeed, the recent statement by councillors of Lisburn district council, who set out the details.
One thing is clear. If one cuts through all the Secretary of State's clichés—I notice that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) are laughing. They may find this a humorous debate. They certainly enjoy taking part in debates such as this one. They do not mind how many people

1131
are murdered in Northern Ireland so long as they can sit here, in this Parliament, without a Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland. That is what they want. But I shall come to the right hon. Member for Down, South after I have finished with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's clichés will not hide the fact that 104 people have been killed this year in Northern Ireland. If one person is killed, we ought to make sure that all the forces are marshalled to capture the terrorists and to punish those responsible for the atrocity. The fact that we have 104 dead should bring all of the Ulster people out to march in protest. It is 10 years, and we have suffered terrible, cruel, agonising provocation. The Ulster people still show great restraint and great patience. I wonder whether their patience can continue for another year, or two years, five years or 10 years. We expect to see some action from the Secretary of State.
My criticism is not of the security forces. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I pay full tribute to them—the Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the police, the police reserve, and indeed, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, the judiciary; and, of course, the prison service, which has lost so many people already at the hands of the provisional IRA. We need some action from the Secretary of State.
The people in the Army tell me that their hands are tied. They say that they are not allowed to, take the strong measures that they feel would bring the troubles to an end, that the Army must keep a low profile and that it cannot operate as harshly as it would operate in other parts of the world in a similar situation.
I turn to the right hon. Member for Down, South and his little group of Official Unionists. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph, the proposed talks—I welcome them on the basis of the White Paper—will be worthless if the Official Unionists do not join in them. Of course, that is blatant nonsense, because the Official Unionist group has become irrelevant to the Northern Ireland situation. The Official Unionist Party, by refusing to take part in talks—and they did not commit it to anything other
1132
than honestly trying to reach some political settlement in Northern Ireland and the creation of a Stormont Parliament—has shown itself to have abdicated from responsible politics. Its decision to boycott the talks based on the White Paper signals the end of a party which dominated Ulster politics for over 50 years.
Whether or not the talks succeed, the initiative will now pass to other political parties and to other persons in whom the Ulster people will increasingly put their trust. I believe—because I hope to be responsible for it—that a new Unionist Party will emerge shortly to take the place of the old Unionist clique, whose only interest is to keep themselves in power and in this place. That new Unionist Party will work for the people and will provide leadership and vision.
Ulster men and women have had their stomachful of the right hon. Member for Down, South. He leads the Official Unionist Party by the nose. Indeed, if one looks closely, one sees that the noses of its members are getting longer and longer, because the right hon. Gentleman keeps tugging at them, pulling them as they try to go one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman is like the soothsayer in the television comedy called, I think, "Up Pompeii", who was always waving her arms about and crying words of woe. That is the right hon. Gentleman. He is like some witch-doctor in darkest Africa a century ago. He holds on to power, and the way that he holds on to it is by spreading fear. He screams, incants, expresses warnings, gesticulates, mesmerises, threatens and abuses.
For instance, the right hon. Gentleman described Unionist voters in North Down as fools because they dared to vote for me against his wishes. He believes that he can come to Northern Ireland and tell the people there what to do. He may be able to tell his little group what to do, and he may whip them into line, but he cannot whip the Ulster people into line.
The right hon. Gentleman labelled all the voters in the European Assembly election as traitors. At the weekend he called his former close colleague, Mr. William Craig, a Government stool-pigeon. The right hon. Gentleman described the hon. Member for—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. This debate is limited to certain aspects of law and order. I do not think that what the hon. Member is saying now has very much relevance to law and order in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kilfedder: I am dealing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with points that were put by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I think that my remarks are relevant because they deal with the question of the proposed conference. The right hon. Member for Down, South is trying to spread fear all round the province so that people will have nothing to do with the conference, so as to make sure that it fails, because he wants no Stormont to be brought about in Northern Ireland. Indeed, he described the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) as a fall guy merely because the hon. Gentleman has said that he would attend the talks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about whether we should continue the order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to whether we should or should not do so.
Mr. Kilfedder: Not only do we have trouble from the right hon. Member for Down, South—who, incidentally, has insulted the Bishop of Down, Dr. George Quinn, in a most appalling way—but we also have the Eire Foreign Minister, Mr. O'Kennedy, who has come to the fore—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the order that we are discussing.
Mr. Kilfedder: I am dealing with Eire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Eire has something to do with the security situation in Northern Ireland—so I am constantly told. Indeed, I was told so this afternoon by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to refer to the Eire Foreign Minister. If you think I am not entitled to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall finish my speech and sit down.
Mr. O'Kennedy attempted in his statement to still the fear of Ulster Loyalists by saying that they have nothing to fear from Mr. Haughey, the new Eire Prime Minister. The very fact that such a statement and similar remarks were necessary
1134
indicates the true nature of the Eire Prime Minister. Everyone regards him as having a deep personal hatred of Ulster and the Ulster people. That was manifested in the sordid gun-running episode in 1970.
The sad thing is that, while we are debating an order dealing with the campaign against terrorism and being asked to renew it for six months, we are now faced with a situation in which the Eire Prime Minister is no friend of either the Ulster people or the English people. He has made that quite clear in the past. Sadly, I think that if he takes action it will be in an attempt to shed the image of the past as a gun-runner.
I do not believe that the security forms in Northern Ireland can totally destroy the IRA and bring terrorism to an end in the Province unless we have the wholehearted support of the Eire Government. At present the IRA crosses the border with impunity. The Eire Government refuse to allow the extradition of terrorists from the Republic to Northern Ireland to answer for their crimes in courts of justice. We still have the IRA operating from safe areas on the Eire side of the border. Until the Eire Government demonstrate their sincerity by acting against the IRA in these areas, we shall need an army along the border to deal with incursions by terrorists there.
The Ulster people are crying out for the restoration of law and order in the Province. They are entitled to have, today, a clear statement from the Secretary of State which they can interpret as bringing hope of peace and an end to terrorism this year. There was nothing in the remarks of the Secretary of State to indicate that that will happen. I am sorry about that. The statistics produced today show that the order, in its present form, has failed to deal with terrorism and that stronger measures are needed.
The Government are responsible for every person who has died since they took office this year. I ask the Secretary of State to bear that in mind when he returns to the safety of his home. I ask him to think about the Ulster people.
6.21 pm
Mr. John Dunlop: In the early stages of his speech the Secretary of State mentioned that there was a

1135
comparative cessation of violence in various parts of the Province. He mentioned that there was an increase of violence in Armagh and Tyrone. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has forcefully put forward the facts about Armagh. I mention Tyrone, especially the town of Omagh, which has suffered grievously from heavy and savage bombing within the past weeks and months.
I received a strong letter from the Omagh district council. It deprecates the fact that the Secretary of State has refused, at least twice recently, to visit that area and has suggested sending a Minister. I was requested to bring the matter before the House. Whether or not I am in order, I request the Secretary of State to think again and, quietly, earnestly and without any acrimony, try to find time in the near future to visit the area that is known as West of the Bann, which is sometimes neglected by the Ministries that operate from Stormont.
The people of Omagh would like to see the Secretary of State because of the violence and for other reasons. I assure the Secretary of State that I shall consider it an honour and a privilege to conduct him around that area if he agrees to a visit in the near future. The Secretary of State has, at the urgent request of Lisburn district council, visited that town and viewed the ravages of the bombers. Surely, the people of Omagh and the surrounding area should have the same facility from the Secretary of State.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), mentioned various parts of the emergency provisions. He referred to "detention"—an inflammatory and explosive word in Northern Ireland. Some feel that a measure of detention should be re-introduced in the Province to deter the terrorist organisations.
Not long ago I had a conversation with a senior commander of the police force in my constituency. He took me into his private office and we talked. He said that some measure such as detention would need to be introduced in a limited and selective way, and that the present law on detention should be used, to some extent, to deter the terrorists.
1136
He told me that they had detained one of the so-called godfathers of violence, an older man. They detained him for the statutory seven days in the police station. The commander said to me "John, he would neither walk nor talk. When he wanted to go to the toilet he was taken on a stretcher, accompanied by a doctor. He refused to talk in any way about his work." The commander said that he knew, from the investigations, that the man was one of a dozen men in the area who are the godfathers of violence. He said "John, they are the men who decide that you must die. They set in motion the machinery for bringing about your death, whether it be by shooting, bombing or any other method".
I know that detention is a last resort, but if the authorities could get hold of these people, take them out of circulation and put them behind bars during the duration of the emergency suffered in Northern Ireland, surely that would be a good measure and would bear fruit in the reduction of terrorism and defeating the IRA.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned the bail order. He seemed to imply that it was rather harsh and was not used enough. We know from experience that when it was easier to get bail those who received it found refuge in the Republic. An hour and a half's driving would take them out of the hands of the police, and of the control of the authorities, and they would find themselves in a safe haven where even £10,000 of bail would not matter one iota to the authorities.
Mr. John: That was not the point that I was making. Where does the burden of proof lie in granting or refusing bail? I said that it should lie, as it lies in the rest of the United Kingdom, on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is likely to fail to surrender to custody. I did not say anything designed to rob the magistrates or the judge of his ability to refuse bail in a suitable case.
Mr. Dunlop: That is the reason why bail is refused on many occasions. Those who are sitting in judgment on defendants know quite well that those who appear before them have a refuge and a way out if bail is not imposed.
I was impressed by the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for West

1137
Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has now left the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman thought that the presence of our soldiers—and I use the words advisedly—in Northern Ireland was an irritant to the minority population. There are those whose memories are long enough to know that in 1970,when the soldiers went to Ireland on the orders of the British Government, they were welcomed with open arms. They were given tea in the streets of Londonderry, where now they are spat upon, stoned and made the subject of all the odium that people can pour upon them. They were received with open arms in Belfast. I can remember watching a television report when Dr. Philbin, the Catholic bishop of Down and Connor, said "Our people are terrified and we are glad to see the Army here." I have not heard that gentleman use such words for a number of years. He is not supporting the British forces in Northern Ireland.
The dismantlement of the B Special force—which, incidentally, was established by a British Government—was one of the main factors in the rise of the IRA. It was known as a super-irritant to the minority. Yet the facts and figures and the history of the B Special force proves that it was responsible for far fewer deaths than the Army. During the time that the B Special force was in control in Northern Ireland—when it gave its services for what were only buttons in terms of payment—the IRA tried to raise its head on many occasions. It failed to get any hold upon the country, or even upon the minority population, because of the presence of the B Specials—local people with local knowledge who knew what they were about and knew the enemy well.
On so many occasions I have said in the House while contributing to debates on Northern Ireland that there is a need for a local home force. During the Second World War we had the Home Guard. Its membership included people of all sorts and of all ages who could walk or carry a pitchfork. Their supreme object was to protect their country against the threat of invasion by the Nazi forces across the Channel.
Some of us served in the Home Guard in Northern Ireland and in other forces of the Crown. We know what an important part they played in keeping down terrorism. The terrorist was active during
1138
the Second World War as he is now. I firmly believe that people such as myself who, because of age, debility and several other factors, have no chance of getting into the security forces, the reserve police force or the part-time UDR, would willingly serve, at weekends and at times when not engaged in the business of the House, in a local force commanded by local people who know the district. We would be glad to serve in a force with the authority of the State behind it. It would seriously inhibit the movements of the IRA and make it much harder for its members to move about so freely. The incident in Carrickmore would not have happened if there had been a force such as a local home guard active in County Tyrone.
There has been a complete swing of the pendulum. One of the greatest victories of the enemies of our country was the disbandment of the B-men along with the abolition of Stormont. The Government should consider seriously the possibility of enlisting the services of those such as myself who want only to defend their own areas. The Secretary of State knows that if one night, greatly inflamed by some happening in the district, I went out with a double-barrelled shotgun and shot at somebody who I knew to be an IRA man, I should be caught, charged and imprisoned for 10 years for having an offensive weapon. However, if I had the authority of the State to move in my area I could move about, help to protect my own fireside and make it hard for the bombers and destroyers of our business premises to move about so easily as they are able to at present. That applies to places such as Omagh and Lisburn and the areas of South Armagh.
I repeat my invitation to the Secretary of State. For the sake of the people in the district of Omagh, I ask him to visit the area. We shall be glad to welcome him.
6.33 pm
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I join with those who have paid tribute to the police and to the Army for the splendid way in which they have tried, to the best of their ability, to carry out the job that has been assigned to them. It is a difficult job. It is one that does not commend itself to most people. However, they have stuck to it with fortitude

1139
and conviction. The entire United Kingdom, not merely the people of Northern Ireland, owe them a debt of gratitude.
I pay tribute to the fortitude of both the communities in Northern Ireland, and to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. There are times when we in the House are mildly irritated and experience a sense of frustration. We feel that insoluble problems are not helped by the attitude of some of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. In those circumstances we would do well to remember the difficult circumstances in which they have to operate. I pay tribute to them.
A 10-year emergency is almost a contradiction in terms. Either something is an emergency or it lasts for 10 years. To talk of a 10-year emergency makes one wonder exactly what it is that we now face. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I think that there is a considerable fund of good will in the House to the Secretary of State and his Ministers as they tackle the problems. I am sure, however, that they will not take it amiss if suggestions and contributions are made from both sides of the House on the ways in which they may more effectively tackle the difficult problems.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) tells us from time to time, those who live in the border areas have a stronger streak of republicanism—I am talking about those in the minority communities—than those who live elsewhere in the Province. That is a fact of life of which the Government must take note. However, the border area is as much an integral part of the United Kingdom as anywhere else. That strong streak of republicanism cannot be allowed to interfere in the effective rule of Her Majesty's Government.
I pay tribute to those, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who have visited the area. I pay tribute to their great personal courage. However, they have gone in quickly by helicopter. They have done so quietly and they have slipped out quietly, again by helicopter. I do not seek to detract from their personal courage when I say that that is a reflection of how far Her Majesty's Government's rule extends in that area. That
1140
should be a matter of grave concern to the House.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I do not believe that the border can be sealed. Physically it is beyond our capacity to do so. It would be unacceptable to do so politically. It would seem a strange position for a country that prides itself on its democracy to have to resort to something that we condemn in a divided Germany. I do not say that the motivations would be the same for the setting up of such a barrier. In fact, they would not be the same. Nevertheless, the appearance would be politically unacceptable. I do not think that sealing the border is a viable option.
Where else do we turn? My right hon. Friend has conducted negotiations with members of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We understand that the arrangements that they came to must of necessity be secret if they are to be effective. I think that the whole House accepts that. Nevertheless, if that acceptance is to be sustained, the arrangements must be seen to work. If I may use a colloquialism, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The good will is extended. The hope is extended. However, we must see the goods being delivered. It may be that in six months' time my right hon. Friend will be able to report a decrease in the amount of violence that takes place along the border. Those of us who are familiar with the affairs of Northern Ireland will draw our own conclusion—namely that the arrangements have worked.
It is fair to say to my right hon. Friend that, if the arrangements do not work, and if they are not seen to work, the defence of our people must take priority over the defence of other people's people. It is required of the Government that they shall act by whatever means they see fit to defend our people. If negotiation and consultation prove to be ineffective, some more direct means of bringing pressure to bear on the Republic to protect our people must be entertained. What that should be at this stage one does not care to speculate or indicate to the Government. There is a variety of options—economic, political and national. If one option does not work, some other means must be found to protect our people.

1141
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Down, North has left the Chamber, because he made a good point. However, I did not agree with his intemperate attack on the Secretary of State and I am sure that most hon. Members would deplore it. The Government face a diffifulty that must be recognised. As the Government wish to increase the role of the RUC, and concomitantly decrease the role of the Army, it is difficult to project an image of an Army that is taking stern measures and acting effectively. That balance is difficult to strike. I agree with the Government's policy, but nevertheless it creates an impression in the minds of many, particularly in Northern Ireland, of an Army that is weaker than it should be.
The Armed Forces wish to have greater strength in order to carry out their job, and that is understandable. I enjoin the Minister to devote more thought to explaining the increased responsibility that is being given to the RUC in relation to the role of the Army in the Province, as that would help to dispel the uneasiness that exists.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) put his finger on a significant point. Many hon. Members have been told that the authorities know the names of many of the ringleaders but that they are powerless to do anything as they cannot produce the evidence required in a court of law. However, the authorities can name names; and, if one mentions a certain part of the Province, they can say who is responsible for the violence in that area. Yet those people continue to walk around freely. Occasionally, when the heat is generated, those ringleaders take a sabbatical in the South and later return to resume their livelihoods. That fact is generally known in the Province and is a cause of aggravation.
I do not accept the solution advocated by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I would not reintroduce detention, because it is not worth the trouble that it causes. Perhaps the Government will apply their minds to finding a variation on the judicial process so that it is possible to take action against those who are known to be involved. I am worried about the increase in terrorism that has brought with it a decreased regard for law in the Province. I have no statistics to
1142
offer, but no doubt if I am wrong it will be pointed out to me.
There is a widespread impression that, in addition to the increase in terrorism, there is also an increase in general crime. Terrorism has had an effect on the general attitude towards law and order. Many examples can be given. For example, there is a fairly high number of refusals to pay bills that are owed to nationalised industries or local authorities.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West knows of the irregular transportation of the public in and through his constituency. Whether the statistics bear out that increase in crime, the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland perceive such an increase. It is vital to come to terms with that fact. I therefore welcome the increase in the number of police mentioned by the Secretary of State in his statement. We are on our way towards fulfilling the new official quota.
In line with the Government's policy, if, having attained the figure of 7,500 policemen, a need for more remains, I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider increasing that ceiling again. Confidence in the forces of law and in the ability and will of those forces to carry out every aspect of policing—the minor crimes as well as those involving security—is vital.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's statement that there has been an increase in community involvement by the police. Anyone who has traveled recently in Belfast will know of another problem. Many police stations, particularly the larger ones, resemble fortified barracks. They are like medieval forts, surrounded by concrete and wire mesh. One understands that, and does not quibble with it. However, it makes it more difficult for the ordinary citizen to penetrate them and to take a complaint to the local police station. There is a difficult balance between the need for security and the need to build community relations by trying to bring the police and community as close together as possible.
I admit that there is no easy solution, but the involvement of the police in the community is a step in the right direction and one that I am sure the House welcomes. As part of that interrelationship between Government, security forces and community, it is important that the people

1143
of Northern Ireland believe that Ministers understand their points of view. If it is not presumptuous of me to say so, Ministers should ensure that they have access to genuine grass roots advice and opinion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is not here, because he spoke of the need to involve the people of Ulster more in the affairs of that region.
Apart from when I presented my Private Member's Bill, I have made only two speeches in the House, both on Northern Ireland. I do not wish to be seen as one who speaks on no subject but Northern Ireland, yet in line with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian, I have a responsibility to contribute whatever I can in some small way. I hope that other hon. Members who have considerable connections with Northern Ireland will do likewise. Like the hon. Member for West Lothian, I find it depressing that so few hon. Members are present. If one includes those on the Front Benches who are obliged to be here, and those hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies, who for political reasons have to be here, there are few who want to be part of the debate. Being a new boy, perhaps I understand the pressures better than most. Indeed, I have not yet come to terms with them. Nevertheless, it is a cause for sadness that so few hon. Members are present tonight.
I shall pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) concerning security. He drew attention to the difficulties that soldiers face in riot situations. Soldiers dodging stones is not a recipe for firm action. As the hon. Member for Newbury indicated, some thought needs to be given to what other steps should be available to the members of the security forces in crowd and quasi-riot situations in order to take a firmer and more positive line against those who break the law.
Mr. McQuade: I have full sympathy with every uniformed soldier in Northern Ireland. I do not blame them for anything. But let me say here and now that only a couple of years ago a commanding officer said that petrol bombers would be shot, and as a result petrol bombing ceased for a long time—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is intervening he must direct a question towards the hon. Member who has given way.
Mr. McQuade: My point is that if commanding officers give the order to the troops, few stones will be thrown. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I served under many commanding officers, and one said that if the soldiers were not allowed to do their job they would be withdrawn to barracks. Let the commanding officers be enabled to give such an order.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He made suggestions as to what more positive steps the soldiers ought to take. I content myself simply with pressing on the Minister the fact that there is a need to look again at this question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, it is not only unsatisfactory in relation to the Army and the riot, but it is politically most unsatisfactory to try to tell the people of Northern Ireland that every measure and step is being taken when they can see on television soldiers hiding behind shields trying to dodge stones.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) stressed that terrorists in the context of Northern Ireland are nothing but criminals. One would certainly wish to identify oneself with that comment. It must also be said that no action of those criminals, no matter how physically repulsive it may be, or for whatever propaganda value it is committed, must be allowed to cloud the issue that criminals are criminals and that they are responsible for their own actions. It is no use their trying to persuade people, particularly in North America, that in some way they are the victims of circumstance, because that is quite untrue.
I do not wish to be at odds with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade), but in my view security cannot be divorced entirely from political reality. Soldiers and police, no matter how good a job they do, do not win hearts and minds. They protect, and help to create the right environment in which politicians seek to win hearts and minds. There is a need for the Government and for the elected Northern Ireland leaders

1145
to seek to lead those in the various communities who are law abiding towards some degree of co-operation against the criminals who seek to destroy both communities. Whether or not that exercise should take place here, or in a conference or in some other form which may emerge as time goes by, is not a matter towards which we should direct our thoughts today. But it must take place. If it does not, and if there is no political will to go hand in hand with firm security, there will come a time when emergency powers legislation will no longer be sufficient. The House must recognise that fact. But in the meantime, and with a degree of hope and good will to the Secretary of State, I support the order.
6.55 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: In just over a week's time, the House will go into the Christmas Recess. Therefore, this will probably be the last occasion in 1979–indeed, the last occasion of this decade—when we shall discuss the problems of Northern Ireland, both security and political.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said that he has spoken twice in relation to Northern Ireland since his election to the House in May. I have not counted how many times I have spoken during the past decade, but it must run into hundreds. It certainly runs into scores. In this, the last Northern Ireland debate of 1979, I find myself looking back at the past decade of tragedy through which I, my constituents, my family and thousands of other families have lived. I cannot say that I view the beginning of a new decade—the 1980s—with any degree of optimism after having lived through the past 10 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in a constructive, considered, lucid and concerned way, and in a very low key, posed certain questions to the House and to the Government. I propose to do exactly the same. I believe that at the beginning of the 1980s all parties to the Irish dispute will have to ask themselves some very fundamental questions. They will have to ask where they are going and how they will get there.
I should like to set out the order of priorities as I see it. Early in the 1980s, when we return from the Christmas Re-
1146
cess, the Government will have to decide what they will do, and how they will do it, to try to achieve a solution to the Northern Ireland problem. I do not believe that any hon. Member, or any member of the Government, can contemplate with equanimity the thought that at the end of the lifespan of the present Government in 1984 and the election of a new Government, be they Labour or Conservative, we shall then be saying "Yes, we must find another initiative". We have tried so many initiatives over the past 10 years, and they have all failed.
In the interests of their own electors, and in the interests of all our constituents, the Government must ask themselves the question that was posed so lucidly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. Are they prepared—here I pass no opinion—to see young British troops in Northern Ireland being slaughtered during the next five-year period? That question will be asked increasingly by the electors throughout the United Kingdom.
I believe that there will be an answer to the Northern Ireland problem within the next five years. That answer can be either malign or benign. It can either mean real tragedy or it can mean that the political representatives of all the factions in Northern Ireland will realise the stark staring tragedy facing not only the Province but the Republic and the other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is no good for the Government to swashbuckle and say that the troops will remain, that the security forces will stay until the IRA is beaten. There is no military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. The new Taoiseach has been quoted in the Irish and British press as being a hard-line Republican. I am not sure what that means. We can only wait and see what his attitude will be. It was said that the outgoing Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, was regarded as being too soft-line in his attitude towards the British and too hard-line towards the IRA. Fianna Fail has its history and roots in the Civil War of 1916, after which it was formed as a political party. It clings tenaciously to the belief that there must be a united Ireland. Does the new Taoiseach agree with the recent ESRI report? That report said that 72 per cent in the Republic of Ireland wanted a united Ireland with or without the consent

1147
of the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. Will the new Government in the Republic subscribe to that view?
The new Premier will have to weigh up the problems. On the one hand, he must placate the hard-line Republicans in his Fianna Fail Party. Perhaps that will be to the detriment of bringing about security co-operation on the border. Will he revert, as would appear likely, to the 1975 policy of Fianna Fail? That policy demanded a British statement of intent to withdraw from the island of Ireland. If the new Premier demands that I can only say, as somebody who lives in Belfast and who knows what is happening on the ground, that contrary to what some people in the Fianna Fail Party might say and contrary to the philosophy of the IRA, there would be an outbreak of sectarian murder in Northern Ireland. Catholics, particularly those east of the Bann, would be in real danger. The new Government in the Republic must face that question. Irrespective of the myths of Irish history in relation to the unification of Ireland and irrespective of the passions that flow in the blood of somebody living in Cork or Galway, the realities are that to bring about the unity of Ireland will not be an easy undertaking. I believe that before that can be brought about, there needs to be a blood sacrifice. I hope that I am not living in the island of Ireland to see that day.
I no longer speak in this House as the leader of the minority political party in Northern Ireland. However, I speak with great knowledge of how that minority feels. During the debate—we have not yet heard it—we shall hear that the Catholic population does not support the security forces in Northern Ireland. To a certain extent, that is true. I say that now in my role as the representative of Belfast, West. The attitude of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland depends on where people live.
In Londonderry there is hard-line hostility and animosity towards the RUC. Many would say that that was with good reason because of what took place in that city in 1968 and 1969. The people there live close to the border, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Peterborough. They do not feel beleaguered, as does the Catholic minority which lives in North Belfast. They feel reasonably sec-
1148
ure, that they do not need the protection of the RUC. There has been no sectarian trouble in Londonderry but it has taken place in Belfast. If there is an outbreak of sectarian violence in Londonderry, the border is only yards away and the Catholics can go to Donegal. It is not so easy for Catholics who live in Antrim Road, Short Strand or in West Belfast. Therefore, the attitude to security forces is determined by where people live.
That is also true of the attitude to the British Army. Some Catholics in Northern Ireland would be fearful if the British Army were taken out of their district, particularly those living in Belfast. Catholics in Crossmaglen, Newry and Londonderry do not want the British Army there because they feel safe and they know that they will not be attacked in a sectarian way. As a whole, the Catholic population must make up its mind. Does it want the British Army withdrawn from Northern Ireland? It cannot be withdrawn from one part where Catholics feel reasonably safe, such as in Crossmaglen, and not from another where they feel in danger.
Reference has been made to the brutal killing by the IRA of 18 young British soldiers at Warrenpoint. That killing immediately incensed and inflamed the Loyalist population in Northern Ireland. That Loyalist population could not find those who were responsible for the murders so it did what has been done so often and wrongly—five Catholics in Belfast were picked off and murdered within a week. Therefore, the IRA men who set off the bombs which killed the 18 soldiers in Warrenpoint also indirectly but effectively pulled the triggers which killed the five Catholics in Belfast.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman pronounced one sentence which I believe he did not mean. As the subject of the sentence in which he spoke of five Roman Catholics being murdered, he used the expression "the Loyalist population". Thus, he identified the great body of the majority of Northern Ireland with the action of that reprisal. I am sure that that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention. I hope that he will not mind my drawing his attention to that matter, as it could be misunderstood.
Mr. Fitt: I have no hesitation in clarifying that point. Just as the majority

1149
of the Catholic population does not support the actions of the IRA, neither does the majority of the Protestant population support the actions of the UDA or the UFF who claimed responsibility for those murders. When the IRA kills members of the security forces, retaliation takes place on the innocent Catholic population. That has happened throughout the past decade.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned the Pope's visit to Northern Ireland when he said that it was not a Catholic-Protestant war. I have never regarded it as such. I say here in defence of the IRA—although I do not want to use the words "support" or "defence"—the IRA has never regarded the present problems in Ireland as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The IRA regards its fight as being against British involvement in Ireland and not as a Catholic and Protestant confrontation. By murdering and killing Catholic prison warders, Catholic members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and Catholic policemen, the IRA has made it clear that it does not regard it as a religious war but a war for national liberation, or whatever term it wants to use.
The hon. Member for Newbury also said that he was disappointed in the Central Office of Information, which I understand is a Government agency that disseminates, for want of a better word, propaganda or gives reasons for Britain's continuing involvement in Northern Ireland. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies here tonight will support me. Only last week the three main daily newspapers in Northern Ireland—the Belfast Telegraph, the Irish News and the News Letter—were full of reports of policemen, members of the security forces, who were charged with the serious crimes of kidnapping and bombing. Four or five members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were charged in Northern Ireland with conspiring together and throwing a bomb into a Catholic bar in Armagh. The IRA propagandists have only to transmit those cuttings to Boston or Washington, and the Central Office of Information will have no answer.
When the Secretary of State told us the number of arms that had been found,
1150
I intervened to ask whether his figures were up to date. He said that they were, but quite a number of those arms were being used by members of loyalist organisations and not the IRA. They were found in loyalist areas and were intended for use not against the security forces but against the minority population.
The hon. Member for West Lothian posed certain questions upon which I wish to enlarge. I ask the IRA from the Floor of this House if it believes that the unity of Ireland and the absorption of the Six Counties into the 26 counties is of such vital importance that it is prepared to see many thousands of co-religionists—because many members of the IRA claim to be Catholics—slaughtered before that unity can be brought about? The IRA will have to ask itself that question in the early 1980s.
The question that Northern Ireland politicians—and I am one—must ask themselves is whether we are prepared to seek total and absolute victory over our political opponents. Are we prepared to stand with our backs to the wall and say that we will not discuss other points of view but want to bring about our own wishes, because that is what has beer happening over this past terrible decade? If elected representatives in Northern Ireland maintain that intransigent attitude, it can only be to the advantage of the men of violence who are trying to impose their will through the bomb and the bullet.
Everyone in these islands will be faced early in the coming year with a decision. The British people will have to ask themselves whether the British Army is an irritant in Northern Ireland. It is an irritant to the IRA in certain parts of West Belfast and to some sections of the loyalist community. There are also "Brits out" and anti-RUC slogans in loyalist areas. Going from the top of the Cliftonville Road towards what we all know as the "Hairpin Bend", anyone can see a slogan "RUC bastards" which has been there for a number of years, and that is a loyalist area. Antagonism against the RUC is not restricted to the minority community. People in the loyalist community are also bitterly opposed to the very existence of the security forces.

1151
I opposed this legislation when it first came on the statute book in 1973. It was to replace the hated Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland. That Special Powers Act went on the statute book in 1922, and it had to be sanctioned every year from then on. That emergency legislation came about at the beginning of the creation of the Northern Ireland State, and was renewed in 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929. In 1929 the Minister of Home Affairs in the Stormont Parliament said that it was a waste of time to seek renewal of the Act every year, and to save all that time and trouble, the Act should be made permanent. It was made permanent in 1929 and remained so until 1973 when it was taken off the statute book by a Conservative Government. It was permanent in 1972, but the Government replaced it with even more draconian legislation—that which we are discussing today—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Throughout all those years in Northern Ireland we had trial by jury. This Act did away with that practice.
Since the inception of the Northern Ireland State in 1920, why have we had emergency legislation for that part of the United Kingdom? There must be something wrong. Such legislation does not exist in Scotland, Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom, so the Northern Ireland State must be different. I have repeatedly said so, and thousands of other people in the United Kingdom are now beginning to say so.
The Government must ask themselves another question. How far are they prepared to look to the future to keep Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, to keep their army of young soldiers in Northern Ireland and to keep this "temporary measure" dealing with emergency provisions on the statute book? The crunch is coming.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd that the question of bail must be examined. It is a major issue in relation to the Diplock court procedures in Northern Ireland.
When the Act went through the House I found myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and we both supported an amendment to try to retain jury trials. In the absence of jury trials,
1152
the law as we know it in the United Kingdom is left open to abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd rightly drew to the attention of the House the great unease over the question of confessions which is felt not only by the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights but by all who respect the British judicial system which has survived for so long. A person, on his own admission, on the ground that he has voluntarily made a confession, can be sentenced to life imprisonment for a serious crime.
I recognise that this is not an easy matter, because the IRA and those engaged in violence can exploit it and, in the absence of a jury, can say that the confessions were beaten out of them. But there are questions to be answered. Persons have been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland on the ground that they had confessed to a particular crime and the judges in Northern Ireland have not accepted the confession and have acquitted the accused.
There are questions to be answered because when a judge says "I am not prepared to accept as evidence that confession which was allegedly made to the police", he is also saying to the police "I do not believe that that was a voluntary confession. I believe that you may have ill-treated that particular suspect and that the man is innocent." In those circumstances, would it not be right at least to question the bona fides of the interrogating officers, the people who, by one means or another, extracted that confession which has been rejected by a judge sitting in a court of law? If nothing is done those policeman will carry on interrogating others when the whole of their actions are being called into question.
I suggest that where a judge does not accept the evidence given by the police in such a case, and rejects the police evidence of a confession out of hand, those interrogating officers should be looked at most carefully. If we have a series of such cases that can only bring the law in Northern Ireland, such as it is, into serious disrepute.
I see this debate as something more than one which asks us to renew, for the last time in 1979, the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act. It is much more important than that. It is a question

1153
that has been posed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, which I again pose. It is a question to do with where we are going in the 1980s. We are not prepared to see a dragging on, year after year, of this continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland. To the people who will have to take decisions I ask: are the Government prepared to continue with the British Army in Northern Ireland, and to continue governing Northern Ireland by legislation such as this?
I pose the question to the new Taoiseach of the Republic: is his republicanism of such a nature that he must say and do things to placate those who are so stubbornly republican? Does he recognise just how dangerous the situation in Northern Ireland is and can be, entering the 1980s? Through their elected leaders I ask the Catholic population, whose spokesman in this House I have been for a number of years: do they want the British Army out of Northern Ireland? Do they want it out of only certain places in Northern Ireland? Do they want a united Ireland over and above everything else? Is the ideal or the mythology of a United Ireland more important than the thousands upon thousands who are unemployed, particularly in Belfast, and those in my own constituency, whom I can see very clearly in my mind's eye, who are living in an area where social deprivation is worse than in any other comparable part of western Europe?
I know my constituency. Yes, those living in it want to see a united Ireland brought about by consensus. They are not prepared to attempt to bomb, kill or shoot their Protestant countrymen into a united Ireland against their will, but they do tenaciously cling to that ideal. They will have to face up to the questions that I am posing to them. Do they want the British Army out of West Belfast? Do they want the RUC out of West Belfast? I do not believe that they do.
I very well remember that, early this year, when the RUC station in Roden Street at the foot of the Donegall Road was closed, I had a petition signed by 152 Catholics asking me to approach the RUC to ask that the station be re-opened. I went to the then assistant Chief Constable and pleaded with him to keep that RUC station open. He did not do so, allegedly for the reason that the Army
1154
could not give the RUC protection. Since then there has been nothing but vandalism, robbery, hooliganism and violence.
The people in Northern Ireland cannot be selective and say they do not want the police in Crossmaglen, but they want them in the Antrim Road and the Cahill Road, where so-called "loyalist" thugs blew up a Catholic chapel that was to be opened in a fortnight's time. The terrorism is not exclusively on one side.
There are questions that have to be asked and I can see myself at the end of 15 years in this House and, contrary to the political attitude that I have taken through all the years of my political representation, saying to the Secretary of State in whatever Government happen to be in power—and it will probably be this Government, because I believe many things will happen in the next four years in Northern Ireland—"I think it may be as well in the interests of everyone to withdraw your troops from Northern Ireland, because the longer you stay there the more you exacerbate the situation".
I hope I do not have to say that, but I am being driven to that inescapable conclusion. I say that in a sense of unhappiness because I do not want to concede victory to the IRA, that organisation which I have opposed with all my will since it fired its first shot in Belfast in 1970. I do not want to concede victory to it, but in the absence of the Catholic community determining where it stands and what it wants, in the absence of elected representatives from Northern Ireland seeing the real pay-off that can face us in the future, and sitting down together round the table, trying to find, at the eleventh hour, some formula that will allow us to live together, I believe that that can happen.
These are the issues and this act of renewal is only a sympton of the very great problem that we shall all have to face in relations between this House and Northern Ireland in the 1980s.
7.29 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the House has listened with great interest to the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and also to the questions that he has posed to various sections of the community, to the Government, to this House and to the Government of the

1155
Republic. There is, however, one matter that I need to underline at the very commencement of my speech. It is simply this: let no one think that it is the presence of the British Army that is keeping Northern Ireland within this Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman said be believed that, if at any time a united Ireland were achieved, it would be at the cost of blood sacrifice. I say to the House that no one need think that the people who want to uphold the Union, and remain within the United Kingdom and outside the Irish Republic, are in any way weakened in their determination. There are serious divisions among the Unionist leaders. Although there may be grave difficulties on certain policies, on the policy of remaining within this Kingdom and outside the Irish Republic, there is a rock solid, impregnable will. Neither this House nor anyone else will ever break that will.
I think it should be said that there is not very much faith in Northern Ireland in any British Government or in this British Parliament. We should be begging the question if we did not face up to that. Even the leader of the Official Unionist Party, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), in addressing a meeting in the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), is reported as having said:
"the British Prime Minister…promised Mr. Jack Lynch to put the screws on the loyalists in return for tightening of security along the border and his help in getting the United Kingdom financial contribution to the EEC reduced at the Dublin summit this week."
He, as the leader of the Official Unionist Party, was busy telling the constituents of the hon. Member for Armagh that the Prime Minister had done a behind-the-back deal with Jack Lynch that in return for his support in seeking to get back some of our own money that is poured down the EEC drain and some kind of security on the border, the screws would be put on the Loyalists. It is evident that the members of the Official Unionist Party have no faith in the Government, although one of its spokesmen, a Mr. Jeremy Burchell, when addressing a Young Conservatives meeting in Scotland, said what great faith the people of Northern Ireland had in the Prime Minister on the question of preserving the Union. It ill becomes anyone from the
1156
Official Unionist Benches to talk about forked tongue on this matter.
Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right—and I have a suspicion that he is—that the people of Northern Ireland have no great faith in this House, would it not be better that Members of Parliament should recognise that fact, however unpalatable it may be to our amour propre, and act accordingly?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. I think that that is what the House should do. Members of Parliament should leave it to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to come up with a decision on this issue. The elected representatives of Northern Ireland participated in an elected convention that was set up by this House. They held debates and produced a report for this House. But no credence whatever was given to that report. It was quickly put under the carpet. Over and over again this House has refused to listen to the will and wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Today we speak about the few Members participating in this debate. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remembers the days when the House was packed for Northern Ireland debates.
Mr. Dalyell: That is right.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Every time the attack was on the B Specials, Stormont, 50 years of misrule, civil rights and police brutality. Stormont fell. There was great euphoria in this House the day a Conservative Prime Minister announced that Stormont was to be prorogued. I remember walking out into the Lobby. Members from both sides said to me "It is all over now. We are going to have peace." I said "What you had was a Sunday-school picnic. You will now see the trouble really starting". They laughed. But those of us from Northern Ireland knew what would happen.
Today one hon. Member said that the IRA had not made much political mileage in the past few years. However, it made tremendous mileage in the first few years of its struggle with the fact that this House did away with Stormont and the B Specials, disarmed the police, and took sides in the matter, it seemed, against the wishes of the majority. The IRA says "If we keep at it the British House of

1157
Commons and the British Government will weaken." We all know—and we need to face up to it—that over the years British Governments have said certain things in certain places. Then, when the chips were down, they did the very opposite. This is what is at the heart of the ordinary unionist—spelt with a small "u"—in Northern Ireland: the great fear that that might happen again.
This is what I say to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way in one moment, but there is one point that I should like to add.
This is what I have said to the people of Northern Ireland. I continue to say it. They need not worry about what the British Government do, as long as the Unionists have a majority. That is their guarantee that they cannot be pushed about. That is all that they need to worry about. I have preached this up and down the country: "You are the majority and as long as you are there you cannot be pushed about." That is the only point about which they need to worry.
Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman has that opinion of British Governments—and frankly we have had virtually no success, not just in 30 years but in hundreds of years—how does he justify the presence of the instruments of any Government, namely the Armed Services sent by that Government?
Rev. Ian Paisley: We have to face the fact that this is the Government that we are under. We must recognise that the Government have responsibility, which they took. Consider the 50 years of so-called misrule. Look at the picture of Northern Ireland in those 50 years and compare it with that of the past 10 years. Then toll me who did the best job—the Stormont Government, with all the opposition that was arrayed against them, or this Government, who took responsibility? Belfast was not then in the state that it is in tonight; neither was Londonderry; neither was the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford); nor was my constituency in its present state.
We saw the sad havoc of those years. This Parliament should face up to the
1158
fact that it has made a mess of Northern Ireland. There needs to be deep thought on the part of Members of this House.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me add one point before the hon. Gentleman intervenes.
The position is that the House should be supporting the Secretary of State by every possible means in considering whether the politicians of Northern Ireland cannot have some say in what the Government will put to the House on the question of the future government of Northern Ireland.
There are things in the paper produced by the Secretary of State that are repugnant to Unionists. Yet there is a basis in that document, as it declares that we shall discuss neither a united Ireland nor the old power sharing executive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There is no mileage to be gained in discussing that. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that if there is to be a united Ireland it will be a blood sacrifice. We should not talk any more about blood sacrifice. We should not talk further about a matter which will exacerbate the situation. We should talk about things that can be done for the benefit of both sections of the community now. We should not try to rake over old ashes.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before any other hon. Member interrupts, may I interrupt to say that the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the emergency provisions order which we are discussing.
Mr. Dalyell: Whether we like it or not, the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers as a mess happens to coincide with the presence in Northern Ireland of the Armed Services. I said much about that in my speech, and I praised the individuals in the Armed Services. The time has come to put a direct question to the hon. Gentleman. Is he or is he not in favour of the presence of the Armed Services?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am certainly in favour of the presence of the Army. I wish to look into the minds of the terrorists. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that he did

1159
not understand the intentions of the IRA. The IRA and the Irish patriotic terrorist—if he wishes to call himself that—will always be against the Establishment. What lies at the root of that? Let us consider South Armagh. We should learn from history. Let us examine the South of Ireland. De Valera was President of the Dail. He disagreed with the treaty and he left the Dail and formed the irregulars, and so began the most terrible page in the whole of Irish history. It was not written with a fight between Irishmen and the British Army. It was a fight between the irregulars of De Valera and the treaty party of Cosgrave. Michael Collins, who trained some of De Valera's men, was murdered by the very men he trained.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that precisely was my point. Could we please not discuss what went on south of the border, but the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course I have to bow to your will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but these matters were dealt with in previous speeches. They have great relevance to the emergency. If such events had not taken place, there would not be an emergency. They are part of the whole saga, and we need to talk about them.
The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to a young girl who said "If Paisley did it, it would be all right". That is not so. She was not speaking the truth. When De Valera was out on a limb, he ordered his men to kill his own previous colleagues. They killed Michael Collins, a man who did more to get the British out of the Republic than anyone else. But he was killed by De Valera's own men.
The Royal Irish Constabulary was largely a Roman Catholic constabulary but it bore the brunt of all the attacks. Why? It represented the Establishment. Why were those Roman Catholics shot in Belfast by the IRA? It was not because they were Roman Catholics, but because they wore the Queen's uniform and identified themselves with the Establishment. The hon. Member for Belfast, West knows that that is true. If a person
1160
is identified with the Establishment, he will be the target of the IRA gunmen. Anyone who lines up in any way with the Establishment will be treated in that way. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that in certain parts of Ireland the Roman Catholic population wants the presence of the RUC. There are parts in which the presence of the RUC is not wanted. I shall illustrate that.
A lady from West Belfast told me that she had been visited on Friday nights for many years by members of the IRA. They told her that she would have to pay a certain amount. After one of the terrible killings she told the IRA members that she would not give any more money. That night every pane of glass in her business premises was smashed. The IRA came back the next morning and asked her whether she was going to pay up. She said that she would not pay, and that she was going to the police. The IRA said that that was all right. When she went to the police, they told her that they were sorry, but they could not put a guard outside her building. They said that they could not protect her and that if she wished to remain in business she knew what she would have to do. That person will not be rescued from IRA terrorism until the Forces of the Crown can give her proper protection. There are entire areas where the IRA hold the community—not the Protestant community, but the Roman Catholic community—to ransom, and the people have to pay.
A friend recently visited a lady in West Belfast. Whilst he was there, there was a knock on the door. She said that it was the boys who had come to collect the 50p. He asked what she meant. She said that she had to pay 50p to the Provos every week. That is the sort of thing that is happening in Northern Ireland. That is why there are knee-cap-pings and why the terrorists are determined to keep their stranglehold on those districts. Until the Forces of the Crown exercise full authority in those districts, we cannot expect the population to back the police.
Mr. Fitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not deliberately misrepresent the facts. He will be aware that in so-called Loyalist areas, particularly Belfast, that type of protection money has been demanded by the UDA, the UVF and

1161
Loyalist paramilitary forces. They also intimidate many people in West Belfast.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that that is happening all over Northern Ireland. Many so-called Loyalist groups and many other groups are in the Mafia business. It is a racket to terrorise people, but the hon. Gentleman must know that in the Protestant areas the police operate freely. Therefore, people in those areas have recourse to the RUC who can then deal with the matter.
Since we met to discuss Northern Ireland at the end of November something has happened on the island. Jack Lynch has fallen, and a new Prime Minister of the Republic has been appointed. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said on our local radio that he would be very sad if Charles Haughey became Prime Minister of the Republic. He said that it would be an ill omen not only for the people of Ulster, but for the whole of Ireland.
I did not believe that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State got a good deal from Mr. Lynch. I made strictures and asked questions in the House about the deal, but it is evident that they must have got something. The knives were out for Jack Lynch when he was out of the country. When he returned, he knew that if he did not resign there would be a sad end to a good political career. He had to go. Who would have thought that Michael Kennedy, the Foreign Secretary who was supposed to be a protege of Lynch, would suddenly lead the lobby for the new Prime Minister? It is significant that when the new Prime Minister met the press and was asked why he had never opened his mouth for the last two years to denounce the IRA, he said that he was never asked to do so.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: Mr. Haughey also said that Mr. Lynch had spoken for the whole party in the past two years.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not let any Front Bench spokesman speak for him. He would speak his own mind on matters that concerned him. There is another matter of which the House should be reminded. After the conspiracy trial in Dublin, Mr. Lynch went on record as saying that Mr. Haughey may have been cleared of conspiracy, but there was no
1162
doubt that he was implicated in the affair. That was said, not by a rousing Unionist in front of a Loyalist audience, but by the Prime Minister of the Republic.
I have grave fears and I do not share the Secretary of State's confidence that his policy will be continued. The right hon. Gentleman's security policy is in shreds. We shall get no help from the Republic. The questions that the hon. Member for Belfast, West posed to the Southern Ireland Premier are important. What will Mr. Haughey do? The people of Northern Ireland would like to know the answer to that question.
We have had a sad few months in Northern Ireland in which a number of prison officers have been murdered. Assistant governor Jones was also murdered, as was chief officer Billy Wright. When one visits the homes of those men and talks to the womenfolk and children who are left, one wonders why better security cannot be provided for prison officers who have become the targets of the IRA.
The IRA has swung into battle against the prison officers in order to highlight the "dirty" protest and what is going on in the Maze. Protection was given at the gates of the prison and at the club that the prison officers frequent, but the IRA switched its tactics and started killing the men at their own homes. Billy Wright got out of his car to go into his own home and was shot through the back. That could happen time and again.
Ministers need to take the problem on board. It needs to be seen that protection and a proper defence can be given to prison staff. If the IRA continues with the killings it will be a very serious matter.
The hon. Member for West Lothian accepted that when a British soldier from this side of the water is slaughtered in Northern Ireland, there is just as much sorrow as there is when a local inhabitant is killed. The local people make that known to the Army in that area. I have seen letters written by mothers in Northern Ireland to the mother of a Scots boy who was killed in the Province. I have read that exchange of letters. There is deep sympathy in Northern Ireland. We do not want young men from this side of the water to be slaughtered on our streets. We feel it as if it were our own

1163
—and so they are in the United Kingdom family.
The Ulster people are prepared to carry the burden of security, as they carried it for 50 years. They are prepared to go on the streets and stand up to the IRA, but the House destroyed the best security force that we ever had. Even the historian of the IRA said that the B Specials were able effectively to keep down the IRA.
Some time ago I heard a Republican say that the B Specials were angels compared with the British Army. The Government should give closer consideration to involving more Northern Ireland people in the security battle.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West suggested that the propaganda that would be made of an incident involving RUC men could do great damage to the force. I do not doubt that, but it should be emphasised that the RUC investigated what had happened and brought charges against its own men. It cannot be said to be a partial force. It has acted impartially and ruthlessly against all sections of the community. Indeed, some would say that it is more ruthless against the Protestants than against the Roman Catholic section.
The RUC has shown that it is prepared to deal fairly with all sections. The RUC arrested the gang known as the "Shankill Butchers"—one of whose victims was a Protestant; they were not all Roman Catholics. The RUC have acted honourably and as a force in which all sections of the community can put their faith.
In South Armagh even IRA men said "Let the police bring us out". They did not want the Army to bring them out; they were glad to send for the RUC. Even the IRA was prepared to trust the police. We have also heard another illustration in what happened at Roden Street. The way forward is to get the police into every area as soon as we can.
No one should think that a political initiative will solve the problem of the IRA. Gerry Adams said the other day "We are as much against the Republic's Government as we are against the British Government. We will fight them and destroy them as well." No one should think that if we achieve a political settlement the IRA will go away. If the people agreed a political solution in a referen-
1164
dum tomorrow, with a new Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland, the IRA would increase its activities in an effort to destroy that. There is no easy way to defeat the IRA. It will have to be militarily defeated. That is the only way that it can be defeated.
Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the continuance of the emergency provisions Act, or does he feel that its continued unamended existence is simply a provocation and may be a breeding ground for some of the unrest that he has described?
Rev. Ian Paisley: If the House started to amend the Act tonight, the people of Northern Ireland would say "This is the beginning. Now we can see the way they are going. They will weaken and eventually sell us out." I do not agree with the nonsensical idea that juries can be got at. No one knows who is to sit on a jury until they are picked. The then Attorney-General said when the emergency provisions Bill was in Committee that Protestant jury men were not doing their duty and that the jury system therefore had to be abolished. I believe that juries, both Protestant and Roman Catholics, were not bringing in perverse verdicts. The House was told that jury men would be got at. In fact, it is the witnesses who could be got at.
I believe in jury trials and I do not like the Diplock courts. I was always opposed to them. However, this is not the time to start dismantling the legislation. The time for that is when we see that the terrorists are being defeated. Then is the time to make a change.
I have one last point. There was an RUC reservist who, according to press reports, was in touch with the IRA. He was a protestant and an elder in the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. He was well placed in the SPG and was found with thousands of pounds in his possession. It is alleged that this man was in touch with the IRA, receiving this money and giving vital information which could have led to the deaths of his colleagues. The Minister had better say something about that.
We are now told that the papers went to the DPP but that there will be no prosecution. That decision has sent a shock right through the whole membership of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

1165
Members of the RUC have asked me why that decision was taken. The Minister should clear that point up tonight. We need to know what the position is. If this man did not do what was alleged, why did he resign? If he was not what he was alleged to be, why was he put into protective custody? The answers to those questions need to come out in this debate.
8.1 pm
Mr. Wm. Ross: This is not the first debate of its kind and I believe that it will not be the last. I remember a debate when the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I warned him about the effects of the structural reorganisation of the IRA. It was reorganising into a cell structure. I pointed out in that debate the need to assess the IRA capability as a result of that reorganisation. I urged the Government to take measures to deal with the new IRA which would emerge.
Nothing was done at that time and little appears to have been done since. As a result, the Provisional IRA has reorganised into cells. It has set up active service units both in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland. It has its own system of communications which is now operational. Much could have been done to nip that reorganisation—which has proved so devastatingly dangerous—in the bud. Nothing was done. We missed the boat.
The previous Parliament—I say "Parliament" after some thought rather than the previous "Government"—continued with policies evolved before that time. Since the May general election when one might have hoped that a new Administration would have produced measures to deal with a new situation, nothing has been done. No new measures or instructions have been issued. I have done some investigating in the last month or two and I have discovered that there has been no change of instruction at any level in the security forces about how to deal with the newly structured IRA and the change of tactics which has resulted from that reorganisation.
We have recently seen the emergence of a new set of political leaders in Ireland. The newspapers informed us today that Mr. Hume is going to the fountain
1166
head, in the person of the Prime Minister, apparently with a clear cut outline of SDLP policy. If that is true, it can mean only that the SDLP's policy has changed from the time when it was led by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). That policy tends perhaps not to a harder line republicanism since that expression seems unpopular but certainly to a greener republicanism than that demonstrated hitherto by the SDLP.
Mr. Haughey has been elected as Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and leader of the Government there. His roots are in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop). His father was a native of Swatragh. He is know and remembered by the old men in that area, some of whom I have recently spoken to. Mr. Haughey's father is remembered as a member of the Irish Republican Army of the 1920s. He is also remembered as a man who departed rather hurriedly from Swatragh following the murder of Sergeant Burke in 1920.
Mr. Charles Haughey is a man whose rabid republicanism is well known. He often visited his relatives in my constituency when he was a school boy and a young man. He is well known there as is his republicanism and his attitude to the population of Northern Ireland. I made a careful note of Mr. Haughey's recent TV appearance. As many hon. Members have said, he condemned the Provisional IRA. I also noted that his condemnation did not extend to the IRA as it was in 1970. I found that significant in the new leader of the Irish Republic.
For anyone who has studied this man and the change in the leadership and policy now apparent in the SDLP there is not much comfort or hope that there will be reasonableness either from Dublin or from Londonderry city. I represent Londonderry. The new leader of the SDLP, Mr. Hume, has his home and his power base there. I believe that recent events confirm the accuracy of my belief that we will not receive help in the amelioration of the security situation in Northern Ireland from either source.
A citizen of Dublin appeared on television just before Mr. Haughey was elected. That citizen said that it was not the business of anyone except the people of the Irish Republic who was the new Irish Prime Minister and leader of

1167
Fianna Fail. In normal circumstance that is a sentiment with which I would heartily agree. In any other country, even in the Republic in normal circumstances, I would agree with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In fairness to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who has just spoken, and in fairness to the House we must not allow this debate to range too widely. We must keep it to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order. That is what we are discussing.
Mr. Ross: I agree with what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that if the House will bear with me for another sentence or two it will see that the remarks that I was making were justified because they have a bearing on the order before us. I was going to point out that the attitude of the Irish Republic and its Government—and the fact that it allows terrorist bases to exist inside its territory from which the IRA can attack citizens of the United Kingdom—has a bearing on this order.
It is well known to the security forces, to all Northern Ireland hon. Members and to those hon. Members who take an interest in Northern Ireland, that such bases exist and that large numbers of people from Northern Ireland are on the run in the Republic. Time and again extradition warrants have been sought in respect of those murderers, but they have been refused. That makes it reasonable to talk about the attitude of the Irish Republic and to say that no help is forthcoming from there.
Many hon. Members today and many spokesmen of Church and State, including the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), seem to believe that if there is a form of political settlement in Northern Ireland the IRA will fade away.
Mr. John: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) cannot have been listening to me with his usual care. I specifically said that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that there is a purely political solution. There must be a combination of a political solution and an even-handed security policy which is fair and humane.
Mr. Ross: I withdraw my remarks as they related to the hon. Member for Pontypridd. However, many people outside the House do not take that view. I agree with the hon. Member. I do not believe that a political settlement will make a blind bit of difference to the IRA. Anybody who believes that the Secretary of State's conference will decide whether there is a settlement is barking up the wrong tree. Those who believe that must believe that someone attending that conference controls the Provisional IRA and can switch IRA members on and off at will.
If an SDLP spokesman were in the House tonight he would be the first person to deny that that party has any influence on the IRA. I am sure that no hon. Member believes that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has influence over the IRA any more than any of my hon. Friends. What on earth are people who believe that thinking about? What sort of woolly minds have they that they do not understand the mentality of those with whom they are dealing?
Many hon. Members have referred to conferences and talks. I cannot understand for the life of me what such conferences are intended to accomplish. I am exceedingly suspicious of the whole affair. I cannot understand what the Secretary of State hopes to achieve. He already knows in detail precisely what each political party thinks and wants. If he cannot come up with something which is acceptable to them all, I can assure him that an eyeball to eyeball conference will not be successful. For that reason, my party will not be represented at such a conference.
I cannot see any salvation from a conference of Northern Ireland parties and I do not believe that help will come from Dublin. It behoves us to ask the House to look to the defence of the citizens of the United Kingdom. That is our plain duty. The Secretary of State has that responsibility.
The security structure in Northern Ireland involves the police in a full-time and part-time capacity, the Ulster Defence Regiment in a full-time and part-time capacity, the Army, the GOC, the Chief Constable, Sir Maurice Oldfield and the Secretary of State. I cannot understand

1169
what Sir Maurice is supposed to be doing. If heads are to be knocked together, it is a political job. It is a job for the Secretary of State and nobody else.
In the past when we have asked about security in Northern Ireland we have been told by the Secretary of State that these are matters for the police, the Army or the security forces. This argument has been used as a buffer between inquiries by hon. Members and the activity on the ground. I hope that it is not suggested that Mr. Oldfield and his office can be used to put another little buffer between this House and the operations on the ground, because that is just not accept-acceptable. [Interruption.]
Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) says, we did not think that Sir Maurice Oldfield, ex-head of M16, had been stripped of his knighthood. In my speech—as in those made by many other hon. Members—I raised the question of Sir Maurice Oldfield's position. Can we get it straight from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross): is he against the presence of Sir Maurice Oldfield in Northern Ireland in this context?
Mr. Ross: I find myself in great difficulty, because I do not know what on earth the man is doing there. No one knows exactly what his role is or what his duties are, so how on earth can I form a reasonable view about whether we welcome him or whether he should be there at all. There is no way in which we can form such a view.
Returning to what I was saying—
Mr. Dalyell: Does not the hon. Member for Londonderry agree with the proposition that was put forward by myself and one or two other hon. Members, which is that the appointment of Sir Maurice Oldfield was bizarre to the point of being counter-productive?
Mr. Ross: I would not go as far as that, because I like to know what the case is before I make a pronouncement on it, and that case has not been made in any meaningful way to the House or to any individual in it, so far as I know.
Regardless of what the circumstances are, there are political decisions to be taken. The buck does not stop on the desk of the GOC, the Chief Constable or Sir Maurice Oldfield; it stops on the
1170
desk of the Secretary of State. The House cannot accept anything that would try to remove from its scrutiny the decision-making of the Secretary of State regarding the activities of the security forces and the policy they are carrying out in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State has been in post for seven months, and it seems to many in Northern Ireland, certainly many of my constituents, that he is preoccupied with jaw-jaw and not war-war. That is a favourite remark that is passed—"Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war." Or so we are told. But is it? I thought that jaw-jaw might reasonably be expected to take place before a war started or after it was over, but not when we are on the battlefield actually fighting. We are on the battlefield. We have been on the battlefield for 10 years and this is no time for talking, but a time for action.
We now have a new Chief Constable, a new GOC and a security co-ordinator, and a Secretary of State with seven months' experience. The Secretary of State has been given our views about what should be done about security. He has had the views of every party in Northern Ireland, and also the views of many individuals. He knows that this war has to be fought and won. This war must be won by better border protection, interdiction between the border and the target, and by domination of IRA haunts inside Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State knows the difficulties of getting proof against the organisers of IRA crime. He is aware of the support that he would have for measures that are normally unacceptable—indeed, there are many such measures in operation through this Act. He also knows that any further measures that he may desire to take would receive wholehearted co-operation, not only from Members of the House but from the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that we need to refresh the Secretary of State's memory today by going once more over all that we have put to him in the past.
There were one or two points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that made me a trifle curious. One was the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim North, when he asked about the United

1171
States weapons for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If my memory serves me correctly, the Secretary of State indicated that the need for these weapons had not yet arisen.
What on earth lay behind that remark? Was the Secretary of State caught unawares and unable to give a reasonable reply? It appears to me that if that need has not yet arisen it can mean only that the Secretary of State expects the situation to deteriorate, and I do not think that he would find that acceptable. If the RUC does not need those weapons at present, why does it ever need them, if things will get better? I am as concerned about this as I was surprised at the reaction of the Secretary of State to the increased deaths this year. That increase in the number of deaths as a result of terrorist action should not be treated lightly because it really represents a very serious defeat.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Member has asked me about the RUC's weapons. These weapons have been ordered in three slices. We already have the first slice. We shall have the second slice shortly and the third slice a little later.
Mr. Ross: May I press the right hon. Member? Have any of these weapons been issued yet?
Mr. Atkins: They have been received and the RUC is being trained in their use. They will be issued soon.
Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that reply because it gives a great deal of confidence to those who believe that such weapons are needed. I must confess that, although I believe that the revolver is needed, I am not quite so sure about the rifle.
I believe that the time is long past when the defeat of the IRA should have been accomplished. The only message that I would give the Secretary of State from my constituents is that he should get on with the job.
8.22 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) has said that to speak at length in this debate would give the impression that the problem was one to be talked about and not to be solved.
1172
With that in mind, I shall keep my remarks to the absolute minimum.
Many cynics in Northern Ireland see an occasion such as this as an opportunity that the Government give Ulster politicians to gripe and groan in the hope that they will let off steam and that this will take their minds off what is really happening on the security front. In fact, this is more of a psychological exercise in the Government's mind than an exercise in getting legislation through the House. Therefore, I shall take the advice of my hon. Friend and deal specifically with security matters.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) rightly said that, whatever took place at the conference, it would have no helpful effect on the security situation in Northern Ireland. That must be underlined. If anyone in Northern Ireland or further a field looks to this conference as a way of securing peace for the Province at the expense of the defeat of the IRA, he will be left disappointed. We do not go to the conference with that hope. But certainly it is our intention and our hope that the British Government, when they have structures in Northern Ireland with which they are happy and which the people have approved through a referendum, will want to secure those structures with the full rigour of the forces of law and order.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. Perhaps the Minister could take up this point when he replies. The Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Londonderry that these guns have not yet been issued to the RUC. That is contrary to information that I have had that the arms have been given to the special patrol group. Could he clarify that matter?
We have had a great deal of discussion about statistics, and no doubt these are important. They indicate the number of people who have been killed, mained and mutilated. They indicate the number of buildings that have been bombed and the number of terrorists who have been caught. While they are important in that respect and while they speak volumes about this Government's failure and successive Governments' failures—and indeed the failure of the Official Unionist Government at Stormont—they do not always indicate, and are not always the

1173
best means of indicating, whether a Government's policy is succeeding or failing.
A far better way of judging whether security in Northern Ireland is getting better is to assess whether the IRA potential to cause death and destruction has increased, decreased, or is just the same. How does one gauge the potential of the IRA, or any other terrorist group, to cause death and destruction?
First, there is weaponry. The IRA has the most sophisticated weaponry available. Its weaponry is more sophisticated than that of the security forces. Due to the nature of terrorism, the IRA does not need to possess weaponry in the same quantity as the security forces. One gun can be handed round among a lot of people. The IRA has sophisticated weaponry in large quantities. That weaponry, I suggest, is better than it has ever been during the whole period of this so-called emergency.
What about manpower? Again, I suggest, the manpower of the IRA is greater than it has ever been. The IRA has young recruits coming out of school and the person who was always on the sidelines keeping his hands clean. He is called the godfather of terrorism. I do not know why he is given that name. It is not an apt title. For the purposes of the debate, I will call him the godfather of terrorism. He has never been caught. He is still directing operations.
Added to that work pool are people now coming out of prison. These are people who were put away, perhaps 10 years ago, for the most foul and dastardly crimes. They are coming out of prison with all the experience of the lectures and the training they have received in prison. It should not be forgotten that Long Kesh is a training ground for the Provisional IRA and others. A more capable person who can teach young recruits all the evils of terrorism is coming out of prison. This puts the IRA in a better position to cope.
The finances of the IRA, I suggest, are no worse than they have ever been in the past. Money seems to be freely available. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has spoken of the propaganda that the IRA uses in America. I do not believe that those funds have dried up. The Minister can perhaps indicate what information he possesses.
1174
I should like to pose questions. Dozens of questions have emerged from the debate. I hope that the Minister will try to answer as many as possible. I should like to know whether the Minister can give any confidence to, and help the spirit of, the Ulster people by indicating that I am wrong in any of my assumptions about the potential of the IRA to cause death and destruction. While the Government may have the best intentions in wanting to defeat the IRA and may, indeed, be determined to beat the IRA, a gap can still exist between their determination and the tactics that they employ to defeat the terrorists.
I ask the Minister to indicate what measures the Government are taking to make a dent in the IRA so that its potential to cause death and destruction is lessened. A former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), was arrogant in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman informed a delegation from the Alliance Party in February 1978 that things were not as bad because the number of people killed that year was less than in the year previously. That same night, in the constituency I now represent, 12 people were killed. The right hon. Gentleman's statistics were thrown out of the window. The figures had become worse. That is why I leave statistics to one side. Although they demonstrate a lot, they do not demonstrate whether the IRA is being defeated.
Mr. Dalyell: This is precisely why some of us feel that we, on this side of the water, are not very good at handling these affairs. I should like to put a slightly different proposition to the hon. Gentleman. His speech emphasises once again that people in Belfast all know each other. They know who is who. If the safety net of the troops were withdrawn, would not the situation become better rather than worse precisely because everyone in Belfast seems to know everyone else and what is happening, as the Irish do, and all sides would become frightened? Is not that a possible scenario?
Mr. Robinson: I thank the hon. Member. He is one person for whom I have great respect, for a particular reason. On every occasion that we come here to debate Northern Ireland issues, I seem to be looking across the Chamber at his face.

1175
He seems to have an interest that I wish were shared by more hon. Members. The question that the hon. Member raises is difficult to answer, because all that one is doing is guessing. What he said could be true. But it could equally well be true that it would put people into such fear that they might do that which they would not otherwise do.
I am not altogether opposed to our troops being withdrawn, provided that we make sure that the RUC and the security forces based in Northern Ireland have sufficient weaponry to do the job, sufficient armoury to keep themselves covered and sufficient manpower to cover the problems. No Northern Ireland man is asking anyone else to defend him. He is quite able and content to do it for himself. All that Northern Ireland men ask is to be put in a position in which they can do it.
Many politicians in Northern Ireland, some from across this Chamber, and some politicians from the South, have called for what they call the Ulsterisation of Northern Ireland security. We do not oppose it. We do not ask anyone to die on our streets for us. But we would have thought that, as our forefathers made the supreme sacrifice for people on this side of the water, the family of the United Kingdom should on this occasion not look for ways to withdraw its troops and not look upon it, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) did, as being a generous offer. It is not a generous offer. It is what we are entitled to as part of the United Kingdom.
If London were under siege by terrorists, would it be considered by the House to be a generous offer for the House to make money available for the security of this city? I think not. We expect to have security in the Province. We are happy to supply it ourselves, provided that we have the manpower and the weaponry to do that.
In conclusion while we seem to come here every six months and rehearse our speeches on the security situation and we seem to look across the Chamber at the same faces on every occasion—and sometimes some of us may just blow off the dust from the last occasion and use the same speech again—I wonder how many more times I shall be coming to the
1176
House, and how many more times we shall have to consider the renewal of such an order. The answer lies in the Government's hands, because the order must remain on the statute book as long as the emergency in Northern Ireland remains. Dealing with the emergency is in the Government's hands. I ask them to take that step, a step that they know in their hearts is right. They must take active measures against the terrorists.
We have talked about the appointment of the so-called security co-ordinator, about changes in structures, and so on. Those things might all be helpful. But more than that is needed. We need action on the ground, and greater action than we have had before, because the action to date has not done the job. I wonder how many more people will die in Northern Ireland streets before we debate this order again. I wonder how many soldiers will die, and how many policemen will make the supreme sacrifice, before we next discuss this issue. I say "I wonder", but again I know the answer. Many, many more will die.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I rise to speak in support of this continuance order. In doing so, I should like to suggest that there are two dimensions in which our reaction to terrorism should proceed. There is, first, the physical warfare—that which is actually done and undertaken, and is seen to be done. There is, secondly, the psychological war ware, which is an important operation which must go side by side with the physical warfare.
The Secretary of State should realise that the security effort now being undertaken is greatly undermined by the lack of extradition powers in relation to the Irish Republic. The problem is not only one of obtaining extradition. There is also the problem of providing the courts in the South with sufficient information to enable them to extradite terrorists to Northern Ireland or this part of the United Kingdom.
Let us consider the so-called problem of extradition. The Irish Republic has stated that extradition would be in contravention of its constitution, especially article 29(3). It is remarkable that, when in opposition, Mr. O'Kennedy stated that, whatever the objections to exercising

1177
extradition, they were not constitutional. He argued that the evolving position in Northern Ireland would render it important to consider the possibility of extradition in future. Those words were uttered while he was in opposition but, alas, we do not hear the same gentleman refer to that fundamental facet of the security policy for the whole island of Ireland.
If we hope to see extradition used successfully, there is the issue of the provision of information by the RUC, which must interrogate suspects in the Irish Republic. The Garda would not have access to the intelligence information that would be germane to the interrogation. It would not know the history of either the person or the event. There are many reasons that render it compulsory for the RUC to be involved if the interrogation is to result in the extradition of the criminal. The Secretary of State might pursue the possibility of using the RUC in the Irish Republic for interrogtion purposes.
A former Attorney-General of the Irish Republic stated that its opposition to extradition was not really based on a legal argument. He conceded that. It is not even a crass political argument. He realised that if, for crass political reasons, there is not extradition, those concerned might live a little longer—but sooner or later both North and South die together under a Marxist terrorist organisation. His last resort was that, if we allowed the RUC to interrogate, it would interrogate in a brutal way and would be blamed for crimes which the terrorists had committed. What nonsense! I suggest that interrogation takes place under Garda supervision in the Republic. It is vital to obtain the information to put before the courts. It is vital to put alongside that the will of Southern politicians to extradite known criminals from the Republic.
Spot checks are an important part of the security operation in Northern Ireland. Before I elaborate on that procedure, may I say that it is fascinating to note that when an important suggestion is made, and when a certain tactic proves to be worth while in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland, there is always a group that springs to the defence of the IRA. At the end of 1974, when the IRA was at a low ebb, when intelligence was
1178
at an optimum in Northern Ireland and when there was a will within the security forces to finish the job, or at least to try to do so, suddenly not from the blue but from the pit came the Feakle clerics. That was a group of not so well intentioned men who rendered the job of the security forces impossible. That group entered into various deals with the then Labour Government, which resulted in the release from prison of some of the most dangerous men. Within months of the intervention by the Feakle clerics, the IRA was renewed in morale, in weaponry and in directive.
Mr. Dalyell: Who are the Feakle clerics?
Mr. Bradford: A number of clergymen, the most notable of whom was Rev. William Arlow, who is now a canon of the Belfast cathedral. They, on behalf of the previous Labour Administration, talked with the murderers and the gunmen. They did deals in the name of the former Labour Government. One of the deals was the release of a man who later cost the British Government millions of pounds by way of a Housing Executive fiddle. The proceeds of that fiddle went into the coffers of the IRA and provided bombs and bullets to destroy the very soldiers that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) rightly applauds, whose deaths we lament. That group came from the pit to the rescue of the IRA when it needed it most.
In the Northern Ireland newsletter there is an article written by three eminent lawyers. They contend that spot-searching is degrading. They argue that it is contrary to British law and that it should cease forthwith. I believe that we need fewer of the static patrols, groups and searchers in the cities of Northern Ireland and far more spot-searching. It is spot-searching that is the successful form of operation. Therein lies the essence of the lawyers' objection, in the same way as the Feakle clerics before them. They are attacking something that is manifestly successful and that is hindering the IRA. That being so, the opposition magically emerges. I could speak at length on that subject but time is short.
Mr. Dalyell: It is my recollection that Rev. William Arlow at that time had the blessing, if that is the right word, of the

1179
Church of Scotland and of many other do-good organisations. Does not that suggest once again that those of us who try to meddle, with the best possible intentions, from this side of the water can be counter-productive in what we do?
Mr. Bradford: Yes, he had the blessing of the organisation and institution that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, the Patriotic Front has the blessing of the same church. It has the blessing of the churches in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it has been guilty of the most dreadful atrocities as the IRA has been guilty of atrocities in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for West Lothian must suspect, it is not just the do-gooders or the meddling that is the problem but rather the objective of that involvement. That objective involves the coming together of gunmen and terrorists with moderate politicians. That is the curse of Northern Ireland and has been for many years.
Mr. Clive Soley: Perhaps unfortunately, the hon. Member for Belfast, South(Mr. Bradford) used the example of the Patriotic Front. However, we have talked successfully with it and seem to be ending a civil war. Therefore, the implication is that we should talk.
Mr. Bradford: No, the implication is simply that the church has no business giving support, succour and encouragement to terrorist groups. That is the simple lesson to be drawn from that example. I agree with Ian Smith when today he described those talks as a dreadful and total sell-out.
I shall make the same point as I have previously made concerning the use of the SAS in Northern Ireland. There is no point in using uniformed troops in a way that exposes them as targets to the IRA. It may be harsh to say it, but we are in a war situation, despite the Secretary of State's remarks on television four or five months ago. The Secretary of State said then that Northern Ireland was not in a war situation. The situation in Northern Ireland is not one solely of criminality, because that has become sophisticated, quiet and unobtrusive. However, almost every week in Northern Ireland there is bloody butchery, bombing
1180
and destruction that are naked to the eye. If the Secretary of State will not use the term "war situation", what will he use to describe the events in Northern Ireland?
We must use the same tactics as are used by the gutless and spineless terrorists. When those men crawl into a ditch to wait for a prison officer, or a member of the security forces, who is going home to his family, we must ensure that they do not crawl out alive. Action must be ruthless and covert. If anything that has been said by loyalist politicians has made that difficult, then there is shame on us. I wish the covert operation every blessing and ask for its intensification. There is no other way in Northern Ireland.
As for physical warfare, I would turn to the use of executive detention. I accept that some of my hon. Friends may not agree that executive detention is part of the answer. The other attempt at detention was, of course, disastrous, for several reasons. First, the IRA knew that detention would take place because there was a leak. Secondly, it was based on totally inadequate and insufficient intelligence information. Thirdly, that detention was so indiscriminate that it caused more problems than it solved.
However, we would be a poor assembly if we did not learn from those mistakes. If it is impossible to ensure that gunmen die in the course of their dirty work through the use of covert operations, and if, because of lack of wisdom in the House they are not subject to legal capital punishment, we should make sure that they cannot bomb, maim and destroy by introducing the use of executive detention. I believe that this House will reach the stage where it will once again use it. No great legal problem is involved. No Act of Parliament is needed to introduce it. The power resides at the present time in the hands of the Secretary of State.
I turn to what I call the psychological dimension. It is perfectly true that the terrorists thrive on psychological help. I referred to that just a moment ago. They thrived on the psychological help afforded by the Secretary of State in the former Conservative Administration, who talked with the terrorists, gave them hospitality, and who in the minds of many people was guilty of treachery

1181
veiled in the cloak and coat of diplomacy. The same thing happened under a former Labour Secretary of State. The terrorists thrived on that psychological boost. It was psychological food. But if psychological help assists the IRA, psychological warfare will hurt it.
Therefore, I suggest three things. First, we should as far as possible take the uncertainty out of the political situation in Northern Ireland. There is one way in which the Government can do that almost immediately—at least, there is one contribution to be made in that respect which can be made almost immediately. That is to repeal the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, because that Act is like a great magnet to a nail. It has the same reaction upon the IRA. It draws it on. It tells the IRA "Keep chipping away at this spineless House of Commons. Keep chipping away at this capricious group of people. Keep chipping away at this vulnerable mass of politicians who have one eye on the Irish vote in England and the other eye on their own safety. Keep making it as difficult as you can." That Act draws the IRA forward because it is the very essence of uncertainty.
There is one attendant piece of legislation that is particularly offensive to those of us who can see no end to Ulster's membership of the United Kingdom, that is the 10-year referendum. We must remove that. We must remove the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. In an exchange during Question Time, the Minister felt that there was not a great deal of relevance in removing that Act in relation to future positive steps. However, nothing more positive could be done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, because that Act has the same effect on Ulster as shifting sand. It is the essence of instability. If Northern Ireland is fully part of the United Kingdom, it can be demonstrated by removing that Act from the statute book, because it totally undermines the position and invites people to continue to do so. By removing that Act from the statute book, we would deal a psychological blow to the IRA of no mean consequence.
The second psychological blow that could be struck would be to encourage our towns and villages even more to return to a more normal pattern of life. I realise that there is a great danger in
1182
my stating that in the House of Commons, because as we approach Christmas there will be a certain laxity in terms of shoppers, parking, and so on. But, if the IRA gets the message that Northern Ireland will not be bludgeoned out of the United Kingdom, that is by no means an unimportant message for it to receive and assimilate. Anything that the House can do to help Northern Ireland show the face of normality is worth the risks which are inherent in such a pursuit.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has returned to the Chamber. In all sincerity, and without any degree of animosity, I should tell him that he is wrong to assume that the party to which I belong demands uniformity and conformity. I believe that a psychological blow could be struck to the IRA if three steps were taken which would replace or go a long way towards replacing the political position which obtained at the beginning of the IRA campaign.
Often the people of Northern Ireland are treated to a statement about the 15-year Wilson plan for the reunification of the island. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and I believe that such was the commitment to expediency of that Prime Minister that if he could keep a plan together for 15 minutes that would be as much as he could achieve. However, we let pass without too much protest a successful three-year plan which was implemented by the previous Conservative Administration. The three stages of that plan undermined political institutions and stability in the Province and psychologically assisted the IRA.
First, there was the failure of the then Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), to object to Eire's territorial claim over Northern Ireland when both countries signed the Treaty of Accession to the Common Market. The right hon. Gentleman could have objected to the membership of Eire and he could have established once and for all the right of the Province in law to exist as part of the United Kingdom. He did not do so. The way in which that undermined political stability in Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. That was year one—1971. Year two, 1972, was the year in which the Stormont Parliament was

1183
abolished by that Tory Prime Minister at a stroke. Year three saw the emergence of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 with all the inherent defects to which I have already referred and which I shall not repeat.
Politics is about the only orbit in life in which something can be treated as if it never existed. That cannot be done with words, because words cannot be withdrawn, nor with personal actions or deeds because they for ever remain on the screen of history. However, an Act of Parliament can be repealed to ensure that the situation which was disadvantaged is no longer disadvantaged. Something can be rendered to look as if it never happened. The Government have the duty to take immediate action. In so doing, they would strike an important psychological blow at the IRA.
First, even at this late stage, the Government must challenge Eire's right in an EEC context to claim territorial jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. Secondly, they should return a devolved Parliament to the Province, and, in the course of so doing should, thirdly, repeal the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Those three steps would deal a psychological blow at the IRA that it would be difficult to equal in any other way.
At this point I differ from the views taken by my colleagues. I believe that there is merit in participating in the Secretary of State's talks. There is nothing in the document to preclude a Unionist attending the conference or to render it impossible for me to discuss some of the proposals which, for the first time, offer majority rule to the Province. If we do not participate, I do not see how we can complain about what eventually emerges from the pens and minds of civil servants who have not in the past been friends of Northern Ireland. We should state our case plainly and clearly under the leadership and wisdom of a man in whom the whole party and, indeed, the Province has total confidence, the leader of the Official Unionist Party, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). Be that difference as it may, it helps us to establish that ours is not a party of complete uniformity and conformity.
1184
Psychological and physical warfare must be undertaken against the IRA and in such a way as to strengthen and not weaken Ulster's place in the United Kingdom.
9.1 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I share the concern of hon. Members over an emergency that has lasted 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) helpfully mentioned that certain actions of the British troops irritated the situation. The word "irritant" may bethought by some to be an over-statement and by others to be an under-statement, but it is worth reminding ourselves that when the troops arrived in Northern Ireland, they were made welcome. What went wrong? It is not appropriate to pursue that question in this debate, but we should consider why the irritant is still there.
The other day I looked at the figures for the so-called "Diplock defendants," and was struck by the fact that the majority of offenders appearing before the Diplock courts are in the 17-to-25 age group, which is significant. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to work out that 10 years ago the oldest would have been 15 and the youngest 7. That suggests that the terrorist organisations are still capable of recruiting new members. Some of the evidence gathered suggests that these are relatively new offenders and not experienced members of terrorist organisations. Why are these organisations able to recruit so effectively? On one side there is a strong commitment to Republicanism and feelings of social and economic deprivation. Those feelings also apply to the other side, although there is an ideological commitment to union with the United Kingdom.
We must therefore consider the origins of the irritant. When I look at the emergency provisions Act, I am struck by a number of ways in which people may be irritated by the presence and action of troops, and I wonder whether sections 14 and 18 of the Act should be redrafted if the order goes through. Under section 18 members of the security forces have powers to stop and question any person and under section 14 they have powers to arrest and detain any person suspected of terrorist offences for up to four hours. I am sure that those two provisions must bring to the security forces a

1185
degree of information which is very useful. At the time time, I suggest that that has to be put in the balance against how much public support the security forces lose when that is done inappropriately.
Another example is the searching of occupied houses at night, which is a highly emotive thing to do. I am sure that, again, it yields certain rewards at times to the security forces but, equally, I am sure that it provides a recruiting ground for the terrorist organisations. To take this a step further, there is the abilty to question and detain suspected terrorists for between three and seven days. As I understand it—and this is only one estimate, there may be others—a large majority of the people so detained confessed within the first 24 hours. If the others who are held do not confess, presumably they are either eventually charged or released. If they are released and are innocent I am sure that the damage done is immense.
I turn now to the question of prison officers, also very relevant. Clearly, they have been a target for terrorists recently. I suggest there are two possible reasons for this. One is the obvious one, that they provide a relatively soft target compared to, say, the Army or other parts of the security forces. Another reason is that they are associated with the detention of terrorists in the minds of families and friends of terrorists. The whole "dirty protest", as it is called, in the Maze must produce an immense emotional backlash—
Mr. Fitt: Hear, hear.
Mr. Soley: —among the families and friends of the minority population outside. I say, as an aside, though I think it is an important point, that to my mind the time is long overdue, in the United Kingdom as a whole, not just in Northern Ireland, for us to allow prisoners to wear their own clothes. We already do so with female prisoners. I am not in any way suggesting that we go back to political status, nor am I suggesting that by allowing prisoners to wear their own clothes we shall necessarily end the "dirty protest". But there is nothing to be lost by doing so, and, possibly, there is a considerable amount to be gained.
I conclude with what I would call a request, that the provisions on the yellow card issued to soldiers, telling them when they can and cannot fire, should be pub-
1186
lished. I do not think that this can any longer be a great security matter because, as I understand it, these provisions have already been published both in this country and overseas. At the same time, I understand—and I am sorry to repeat my caution, but I always try to speak cautiously on Northern Ireland—that in 1978 of the 10 suspected terrorists who were shot on sight, three were afterwards found not to be terrorists and to be innocent. We should consider the backlash that that must have. It is immense, and it is a fair question to ask that the general public should know what the provisions are on the yellow card that is issued to soldiers, so that the public too can know what action they should take when challenged by a soldier. This is a point of particular importance and one we should not overlook.
Mr. Dalyell: Such regrettable accidents are inevitably part of the story of an army which is placed in this situation.
Mr. Soley: This is the basic failing of trying to solve a political problem by the use of force. I do not agree with those who say that this problem can in any way be solved by force. That is fatal. The history of Ireland has demonstrated that very clearly. The only way forward is to look for political solutions. I suggest that the present time is a time for us to de-escalate, because although one hon. Member who spoke indicated his distrust of statistics, I believe it is reasonable to suggest that there has been a de-escalation and that we ought to respond to that in part.
9.10 pm
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I, too, shall be brief. I rise to announce that I shall not vote in favour of the continuance of the Act unless I hear an assurance that it will be drastically amended or that a new measure will be brought forward in the near future to take its place, together with the amendments outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who opened for the Opposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I have never supported that Act. We have both spoken against it whenever we were able to do so.
I listened very attentively to most of what was said tonight. Very little was

1187
said about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Much has been said about other Acts, circumstances and situations with which we are only too familiar. However, little was said to justify the continued existence of this Act—on the contrary. I listened to a long catalogue of tragedies and events that have occurred during the life of this Act. Those tragedies sounded worse, if anything, than those that preceded its introduction.
Hon. Members from the Six Counties emphasised that the Act had done little, if anything, to improve the situation of violence in the Six Counties. Therefore, the Government have not justified the continuance of the Act. They have justified, in many ways, the reasons why the Act should be amended. It seems to me from listening to the debate, that the Act resulted in a lowering of ordinary standards, expectations, legal standards, and the standards of the police. Those standards would certainly not be tolerated in any other part of the United Kingdom. There has been a lowering of judicial standards. We heard arguments from both sides of the Chamber against the abolition of the jury system. The Government would receive support if they came forward with an appropriate amendment. The lowering of standards must worry all of us who are constantly trying to raise standards. There is a danger that once lower standards are accepted, and there is a tolerance of them, we will be in trouble. That is happening, not only in the Six Counties. There is an acceptance of lower standards as the norm. That means a great deal of trouble for us all.
The Act must be completely reviewed. I should have been only too happy if a Secretary of State from either party had been able to say that this was the last occasion on which a request would be made for the continuation of the Act in its present form. I should be glad to hear that in the next six months the Government would undertake to review the Act, in the light of all the evidence that has come to light, and bring forward new provisions. That would have put a different aspect on the matter. It would have been welcomed. It would not be seen as a defeat—which seems to be the position of some hon. Members repre-
1188
senting the Six Counties. It would be seen as a sensible approach in seeking to achieve a reasonable situation out of a dangerous one. It would be understood by all of us who are trying to maintain and improve standards rather than lower them.
This could have been the time for a complete review of the Act, its workings and its constitution.
I am reminded of a television programme that was broadcast early this year. I watched it, as did many other hon. Members. It reviewed the operation of the emergency legislation, including this Act and the temporary provisions.
Lord Scarman said that the danger with all emergency powers is that they become permanent. Even when the emergency disappears, the powers remain in force. That point was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. Even worse, they result in infringements of liberty. They become accepted and adopted as norms. That results in a general lowering of standards.
There was a nasty incursion into the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not now in the Chamber. I intervened during his speech when he made an attack on the new Prime Minister of the Republic. It is unfortunate that that sort of argument is used before we have heard much about the new Prime Minister's approach from the 26 counties. Some people are reading all sorts of things into press reports. I am inclined to wait until we have heard what the new Taoiseach has to say. I intervened when the hon. Gentleman stated that the Taoiseach, when questioned about why he had not denounced the IRA, said that he had not been asked to do so. The hon. Gentleman ended his remarks on the subject there. I said that not only was Mr. Haughey not asked the question, but that he told the press that Mr. Lynch had spoken on behalf of his whole party during the previous two years.
Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Dail this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, accused the new Prime Minister of not denouncing the IRA for seven years? He accepted no excuse from him.
Mr. Stallard: I was not in the Dail this afternoon. I was here, listening to this debate. What I heard here today was scandalous. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has now returned. I was quoting his remarks about the new Taoiseach and correcting what he said. I repeat that the new Prime Minister had said, not only that he had not been asked, but that the previous leader had spoken on behalf of his party. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not envisage my accepting a Front Bench spokesman speaking on my behalf. He missed the point. I was never a member of the Cabinet. If I had been a member of the Cabinet, I would have had to stay silent while the Minister concerned spoke.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand the convictions of the hon. Gentleman. He was a Government Whip. He had a difference with his party and because of his deep convictions he gave up his office and spoke out. If the new Prime Minister of the Republic had strong feelings on the issue, why did he not speak out? Other members of his party were prepared to speak out. Not only Jack Lynch but Mr. Gibbons spoke out. He gave evidence against Haughey in the arms trial. It is a little late for Charles Haughey to excuse himself now. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we shall see what happens in the coming days.
Mr. Stallard: I do not wish to continue a debate on what the new Prime Minister did or did not say. The remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North seem to point to the fact that the new Prime Ministed accepted what the then leader was saying, and that he was speaking on behalf of the Fianna Fail Party. To try to read anything into that is mischievous, to say the least. I imagine that is designed to be deliberately mischievous, and therefore is most unhelpful. I hope that the sneers and giggles will disappear when we have a closer relationship with that sovereign State.
We need a review of the Act, because it has been a further unsuccessful attempt to solve the political problems of the Six Counties by even more repression. We know that this is not the first time that violence has erupted.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North eulogised about the efficiency of Stor-
1190
mont, the emergency powers Act and the B Specials, implying that they had been more successful in their repression than the Act has been. The hon. Gentleman was almost making a plea for a return to the days of the B Specials. However, violence erupted even then and had to be repressed. The actions of those days were not successful and the Act has not been successful. Repression will never be successful. The only thing that will be successful is the political solution for which we should all be driving.
Nothing has been said to justify the continuance of the Act. The debate has justified an urgent review of the measure and new legislation to take account of lowered standards, the situation outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and Belfast, West, jury service, bail, confessions and interrogation procedures.
Those matters must be reviewed and the Act must be brought into line with the results of that review. Because that has not been done, and there is no sign of that being done, and in the absence of an assurance that it will be done before the next continuation order is brought forward, I shall not support the order.
9.22 pm
Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief winding-up speech. I said what I wanted to say in my opening speech and I intervene only to comment on parts of the debate.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), I lament the fact that the House has seemed to deal with everything except the emergency provisions Act. I understand why that should be so. A great deal of emotion is involved in the horrific events that beset us daily in Northern Ireland.
I always enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), but I must take up the unlikely stance of defending the Secretary of State—whether he wants to be defended or not. Granted that we have understandable concern and sympathy for the victims of violence and for the situation in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Down, North must realise that language, whether expressed in the hard words used by the hon. Gentleman or the softer words that he imputed to the Secretary of State, is

1191
totally inadequate. The one use of words is as inadequate as the other.
The House needs to do the two things that only it can do. The first is to scrutinise the security policy of the Secretary of State—that is, the scrutiny of his executive function. The Minister of State will obviously have to deal with a concern shared by many of us, but articulated particularly by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), namely, the security of prison officers. The fact that they have become targets is a new development which does not arise, at least directly, from the "dirty blanket" protest at the Maze prison, but is visited upon prison warders in Belfast who have nothing to do with the situation at the Maze. Hence my concern for their safety and, I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), my failure to see a direct connection between the killing of prison warders and the situation at the Maze.
Mr. Soley: My first point was that prison officers are a relatively soft option. Secondly, they are identified as part of the organisation of the prison and therefore become a target. If a person has friends or relatives in prison and feels that they are there unjustly or are being ill treated, that helps to encourage a dislike of prison officers and the wish to take revenge on them. It does not, of course, justify the attacks.
Mr. John: I understand that. The softness of the option is one of the points that I was dealing with and when one reduces it to that level any part of the institution of the "English State" also becomes a so-called legitimate target of the Provisional IRA. That is also a problem.
The second function which the House of Commons alone can carry out is to see whether the legislation is adequate for the purpose and whether it meets current needs. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I have directed questions to the Ministers. I hope that the Minister of State will not simply say that the Government have judged that it is not the time for change, but will say why they have made that decision.
1192
In the absence of anything which justifies their decision debate is stifled. If someone says that he believes something should be done and another person believes that it should not, no rational debate is possible. In view of the fact that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has advised the Secretary of State in favour of three amendments, it would be helpful to the House if it knew why the Government rejected that advice. That knowledge would further debate and allay the concern of hon. Members.
The point that has not always been appreciated during this debate is that we are trying to combine an attack upon that modern phenomenon, the urban terrorist, while at the same time preserving a democratic society. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop)—whom I am glad to see back in his place—uttered words which to me indicated anything but a democratic process. Perhaps he feels that the conquest of terrorism is so important that he would adopt wholly unacceptable and undemocratic ways of combating it. He should realise that to behave undemocratically in an attempt to combat an undemocratic organisation is giving the victory to the forces we seek to overcome. It is up to this House, by its approach to these difficult problems, to show that it can maintain a democratic society even when it is under threat from forces which are repugnant and evil.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North in his view of the criticism that has been expressed of the Taoiseach. Just as I thought that the British Prime Minister was unwise to boast how great her victory would be in Dublin before the summit took place, so I feel that we should not complain about what the Taoiseach will do before we see what happens. We and the Secretary of State will need to engage in sensitive and prolonged discussions with the new Irish Prime Minister about cross-border security, which is a matter of genuine interest to both Governments.
Whatever we may feel, we should not condemn the Taoiseach in advance or discount what he is capable of doing, or saying, so early in his premiership. To do that would be to do a disservice not only to the Government of the Irish Republic but, and more importantly, to

1193
our own long term interests. I hope that the Minister of State will not acknowledge the pessimism that has been expressed but will respond to what lies at the heart of the debate—a widespread and genuine anxiety that what we do tonight is justified, and no more than justified by events in Northern Ireland.
9.30 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): Terrorism is defined in section 31 of the Act as
"the use of violence for political ends".
The six-monthly debates on the renewal of the Act represent the response of our parliamentary democracy, deeply committed as it is to the principles of the rule of law and of freedom under the law to the situation in Northern Ireland. We feel that it is necessary, by way of abrogation of normal criminal law in the United Kingdom, to confront a unique scale and degree of violence for political ends in one part of the United Kingdom. In a vivid phrase Mr. Lynch, speaking in the United States the other day, described the Provisional IRA as a form of "brutal and horrific gangsterism."
When examining the extent to which we should make this departure from the norm, one is bound to record that it does and should go against the instinctual grain of hon. Members to seek to provide by law a reduction in the standards of freedom under the law, and everything that we understand and value by that, in any part of the United Kingdom. That is what the Act and the order to renew it does. The purpose of these lawless and brutal gangsters is to overthrow the processes of free choice which is at the core of our system of freedom under the law.
It is right for the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) to question sharply whether it is really necessary to continue with these abrogations. He was particularly right to question whether we should continue the bail provisions in section 2, the dormant but drastic provisions for detention in section 12, and section 8, which deals with the admissibility of evidence. He was right to ask whether they should be retained or so changed that the principle of freedom under the law parallels more closely the generality. The hon. Member asked me for a specific attempt at a justification for not making such changes which have been neither pro-
1194
posed nor endorsed by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I shall, with reasonable brevity and conciseness, attempt a justification for those sections of the Act about which the hon. Member for Pontypridd and the Standing Advisory Commission are in chorus.
The reluctance of our free parliamentary democracy to move towards departures from normal criminal law in any part of the United Kingdom is solid evidence that, once a move has been judged, broadly unanimously, to be necessary and once a change is considered vital and inescapable—as it was when we launched the Act and renewed it—it is likely that there is substantial prima facie justification for such steps.
The Secretary of State showed the underlying and crucial justification, as we see it, in his stark presentation of the latest figures on the extent of murder and bloodshed in the Province by these brutal gangsters. Over 100 were killed in 1979. Admittedly that is a lower figure than for 1976 and 1977, but it is 104–to give the precise figure—too many. The majority of those killed by those gangsters were civilians.
The burden of proof rests upon those who want to press for a change and not renew certain parts of the Act. They must show, in the circumstances that I have described—the extent of the murders and the bloodshed at the hands of these gangsters—that these abnormalities or abrogations which we are asking the House to continue, would do more to undermine confidence in institutions and the principles of our democracy than would a return to a purer form of the rule of law, as we know it in the rest of the United Kingdom. They must prove that a possible enhancement of terrorist effectiveness would undermine confidence.
The parties and individuals who want us to return to the purer form of law and to end these abnormalities or abrogations, have not shown us convincingly that confidence would be enhanced in the future and hope for Northern Ireland improved if we did not allow the existing, and admittedly tough and sharp, provisions to go forward in their present form.
I shall now attempt to give slightly more specific justification to some of the measures—section 3(3) in particular. I shall

1195
begin with the bail provisions in section 2(2). We are convinced that without the section 2(2) provision there would be nothing to oblige the courts to consider the likelihood of an accused intimidating witnesses or committing an offence if he were left at large.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd must appreciate that very often scale and numbers count in these issues. I believe that it was E. H. Carr, the historian, who said that the only valid generalisation in history was that numbers count. Numbers do count in this context. The scale of murders and the number of people involved in terrorism is unique in this part of the United Kingdom. It is right that the courts should be obliged to consider the possibility of a man breaking or abusing bail in conditions such as those that exist in the Province.
To impose such an obligation is not to fail to treat a man as innocent until proved guilty, but simply to ensure that the interests of justice and the safety of the community are best served—indeed, that the very issue of substantive guilt or innocence can be properly established.
In the current conditions the Government would not be willing to withdraw the obligation contained in section 2(2). Such a relaxation would certainly be interpreted by many sections of the population as a relaxation of security against terrorism, at a time when we are seeking to convince those people of the opposite. The figures, alas, are still too horrific.
Mr. John: I specifically excluded allowing section 2(2) to lapse, but I suggested a redrafting to make that section conform to the Bail Act 1976. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Bail Act does not allow or oblige judges to look at the question of re-offence or intimidation of witnesses.
Mr. Alison: Our difficulty is that we cannot amend this Act by this order. There are many ways, with the passage of time, in which it might be argued that large sections of the instrument could be redrafted or refashioned. But I am afraid that in the narrow scope of our debate this evening we could not accept the idea that we should drop these provisions.
1196
I turn to section 8 which has been criticised because of the use, without qualification, of the phrase
"torture or… inhuman or degrading treatment"
as the criterion of unacceptable means of obtaining confessions for terrorist type crimes. It is claimed that the lack of qualification allows the courts to admit confessions obtained by bringing unreasonable pressure to bear on a suspect through threats of the possibility of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, though that might not actually occur.
I remind the hon. Member for Pontypridd, and other hon. Members who are interested in this section that Bennett, among others, has pointed out that this is a false interpretation. I have looked up the relevant section. If the hon. Member will refresh his memory I shall not detain the House now. He should look at paragraphs 78 and 80 of the Bennett Report where he will find that the present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Lowry, made it quite clear that fears that the words
"torture or…inhuman and degrading treatment"
are inadequate are simply not sustained. Also Bennett found himself quite sanguine about this aspect.
Changing this would require amending legislation. I must recommend strongly to the House that in present circumstances there is no need to drop or change section 8. It does not in any way undermine the principle that we all accept that inhuman or degrading treatment or torture should not be used.
Section 12 deals with detention and this was the third broad topic which the hon. Member raised and to which the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights drew attention. Detention has not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975 and, if the Government had absolute confidence that we could continue to do without this power in the foreseeable future, the case for dropping this section would be overwhelming. However, our profound dislike in principle for executive detention and our determination not to use it except in the last resort are no guarantee that the Government may not be compelled by some drastic shift in the security situation to do so in the future. As a dormant option

1197
it is a potential deterrent to terrorism and it is very little threat to our good faith in trying to end the troubles in Northern Ireland by lawful means.
Perhaps I should mention as an aside that the kind of detention to which resort was had in the early period of the troubles could, in modern circumstances and with the information and intelligence that the security forces have today, be used with immeasurably greater precision, limitedness and effectiveness. I am not saying that we shall use it in this way but if we had to resort to it, there is no reason in principle why it should remotely approach the exercise of this power in the earlier period of the troubles.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not the case that if that section were not renewed in this order it could be revived at any time by a specific order for the purpose? In any case, would it not be necessary for the Government, if they wished to resort again to detention, to obtain the will of the House on this matter so that in practice no time would be lost?
Mr. Alison: Yes, I think that we could reintroduce this power very swiftly if we dropped it through the present order and under the ongoing provisions of this Act. But I do not see any great psychological balance of advantage in doing this, given that the power is dormant and the rapidity with which one could introduce it by new legislation, though it be ever so quick, can never be quite as quick as the power to introduce it under the power as it now stands.
Mr. Powell: Of course there would be this difference which might be to the advantage of the Government. If it had to be reintroduced by order it would require a debate in this House and the Government would be acting with the known current will of this House behind them.
Mr. Alison: I would not imagine that we would ever dream of activating this dormant power in an emergency without rapidly giving the House time to debate the matter and consider the issues.
Mr. John: Since the hon. Gentleman concedes that we ought to derogate from the normal criminal law as little as possible, does he not see that there is an irritant quality about a section that,
1198
although dormant, provides for executive detention without trial? Does he not see that this might not win us friends who would be won if it was removed?
Mr. Alison: I must ask the hon. Gentleman also to recognise the irritant effect that is reflected or brought to bear upon me when I receive deputations, as often happens in the Province, from communities throughout the Province, including communities in which there is a majority of Catholics on the local elected assembly. They complain to me that we do not use executive detention specifically and in a limited way to lock up the people known to everyone locally as bad hats. They are irritated by the fact that we do not use executive detention. In defending the Government's refusal, there is no reason why I should go further and introduce the doubt in their minds that would come from the gratuitous removal of this weapon from our armoury for no very productive reason.
Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman could use that argument only if he was acceding to the request made in this Chamber during the debate to use executive detention. If, as he says, the Government have no intention of using executive detention, and if he agrees with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that there would be no loss of time in re-enacting the provision for it there is no respectable argument against removal of this section from the Act. That is what we are saying, and that is what the hon. Gentleman is not meeting.
Mr. Alison: I must say that I did not acknowledge that the lapse of time would be identical in the two cases. I said that there could be nothing quicker than leaving the power on the statute book as it now is, though it might be possible pretty quickly to reintroduce the power if we removed it. I did not say that we would never use the power. Occasions to use it might arise. I cannot foretell the future. I must give the benefit of the doubt to the security of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is why we are leaving the power on the statute book, hoping not to use it but being prepared to do so, if necessary, in the last resort.
Mr. Fitt: A few seconds ago the hon. Gentleman gave the distinct impression

1199
that he had received deputations from Catholics or members of the minority, where they were living among the majority, who asked the Minister why he did not implement executive detention. Can the Minister say whether it is true that he has had representations from Catholics or the minority asking him to implement detention? That is most important.
Mr. Alison: I am bound to say that the Catholics and the Protestants in the deputation who came to see me were not given to our parliamentary and administrative jargon. They did not use the expression "executive detention". They simply said "Why do you not lock up the godfathers?" That is a good question. I will not detain the hon. Gentleman now with the details of the reply that I gave.
Mr. Fitt: It is very different.
Mr. Alison: I am not sure it is very different.
I must answer questions raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd because I was discourteous to him on the last occasion in failing to cover all the questions he asked. I must try to do better this time.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could state what progress had been made on the Bennett report and the implementation of its recommendations. I should like to say a word about the police. This is a topic on which there is universal agreement in the House. There is a need to develop a strong, fair and professional police force. Several hon. Members have stressed how far the Royal Ulster Constabulary has come along that road in the last few years. It must be remembered that this progress has been achieved against a background of appallingly difficult conditions for the police to operate in, let alone to develop as a force. But normal policing is a key to a return to more tolerable conditions of life throughout the Province. The RUC at all levels is aware of this fact. That is why attention to community relations is a top priority for it.
Underlining what my right hon. Friend said, may I say that recruitment is continuing at a satisfactory rate and much has been done to develop the specialist
1200
techniques and supporting services, such as the criminal investigation department, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made reference. My hon. Friend advised me kindly that he would not be present towards the end of the debate.
That principle, of course, underlay the Government's approach to the report of the Bennett committee in the summer. A primary objective of the committee's recommendations was not merely to ensure so far as possible that ill treatment of prisoners could not take place but also to make difficult, if not impossible, the task of those who seek to discredit the police by inventing false allegations of ill-treatment. The implementation of the Bennett recommendations is proceeding very satisfactorily. Those recommendations relating to RUC administrative procedures and regulations were implemented directly by means of a force order. Those recommendations requiring physical measures, such as closed circuit television in interrogation rooms, have been virtually completely implemented. The few other remaining measures are well in hand.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd also asked whether the SACHR will or does publish its views on the Act. The commission normally publishes its view through the medium of its annual reports, which, as required by Parliament, are laid before Parliament. Its last published report gave an interim account of the work that it was doing on its study of the EPA. Its most recent report, to be published shortly, will further set out the results of its deliberations, which are still not complete.
The advisory commission has done, I believe, one or two ad hoc reports, but it is an independent body which decides what subjects to treat in this way, and it has not decided to make any ad hoc report on the EPA. But there will be something, therefore, in the forthcoming report, which will be laid before Parliament.
My hon. Friends the Members for Newbury and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) both raised questions about the powers, techniques, facilities and resources available to the Army for dealing with rioting youngsters and hooligans. The powers of soldiers to deal with rioters are the same as those which they possess

1201
for dealing with anyone else whom they suspect of having committed or being about to commit an offence. Their powers rest essentially on section 14 of the Act, under which the power of arrest relates to any offence. In a riot, this could, for example, be a threat of a breach of the peace or an actual breach of the peace. In either of those circumstances, soldiers have powers to act. In fact, their action is very effective. They have the right sort of equipment to deal with rioting hooligans.
Very often, rioting hooligans are a cover for gunmen and snipers, so the soldiers have to tread warily. Sometimes the treading warily may give the impression of them not being able to proceed very directly against the hooligans. In fact, they succeeded very effectively in containing hooliganism in local areas. I believe that the whole subject is, in a way, getting almost academic now, because large scale riots are now effectively a thing of the past. Such rioting as occasionally occurs nowadays is fully within the capacity of the RUC quite effectively to deal with.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) charged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with having refused to visit Omagh. The hon. Member suggested that it was alleged that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), had been sent instead. But that is not so at all. The difficulties that the voters and constituents in Omagh raised happen, in the first place, to be primarily within the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but I think that the district council rejected a visit by my hon. Friend and said that it would prefer to see the Secretary of State. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be paying a visit to Omagh. I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster that I myself will be going to Omagh very shortly as a pathfinder for my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dunlop: I was quoting from a letler from Omagh district council, which stated that the Minister who is responsible for the Department of the Environment had been offered in place of the Secretary of State. I think that that is what needled the people in Omagh, so they wrote to me. I was passing on their message. I was
1202
asked to raise the matter on the Floor of this House, which I did this afternoon.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter earlier, and now he has raised it again and underlined it. He has discharged his duty to his constituents. My right hon. Friend has whispered to me that he will go to Omagh shortly.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) raised the important question of the equipment available to the troops in Northern Ireland. I wish to study carefully what he has said, and check whether there is any truth in the allegations that the Army is short of equipment. Our information is that the Army in Northern Ireland has the best equipment available for its needs. Any new requirements are met with urgency, and I can assure the House that there is no need for soldiers to spend their own money on equipment. Obviously I shall study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said as it is an important matter.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised some important matters. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, especially asked me to comment on the prison service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a special tribute to the prison staff. As I bear special responsibility for prison policy, I add my name to what my right hon. Friend said, and what other right hon. and hon. Members have said, about the quality and courage of prison service staff. They face exceptional pressures, from not only the current threat to their lives but, in many cases, the nature of the work that they have to do.
I outline briefly some of the steps that we are trying to take. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will know that we have already made provision at the home end of prison officers' movements to and from the prison for the introduction of the two-way radio system. That means that they do not have to open the door when somebody with whom they are not familiar knocks or rings the bell. We have also made available, for those who wish to take them up, bullet-proof jackets to cover the chest and the lower part of the abdomen, though that is not a protection against head wounds. The jackets are beginning to be issued, and as soon as delivery is completed from the United

1203
States every prison officer will be able to have one.
We are taking effective and active steps to improve the security and control of movement outside the Crumlin Road gaol by demolition of a number of buildings, re-deployment of Army staff and a general enhancement of local security. In a visit which I paid to the Crumlin Road gaol last week, I heard no criticism from prison officers about the new security measures that we are taking outside the Crumlin Road.
There is the almost insoluble problem of individual security at the home end of a prison officer's movement to and from the prison. We are studying the possibilities of special measures, and I believe that we shall have something effective to contribute. We are determined to do everything that we can to back-up, logistically, the spirit of determined service and courage which the prison officers, without exception, are showing.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also raised a question of the prosecution or non-prosecution of the RUC reserve officer who is alleged to have passed information to the IRA. I am afraid that I have to dodge the question—although I do not do it in any underhand way—by saying that this is properly and exclusively a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. It is not a question about which I can give the hon. Gentleman any authoritative answer.
Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
Mr. Alison: I am afraid that the debate has continued slightly longer than some had expected. I apologise to the House for taking as much as half an hour in replying, but I believe that there were a number of matters with which I had to deal. I hope that I have covered most of them—if I have not I plead in my defence the pressure of time. I ask the House now, without equivocation, to allow the order to pass into law.
Mr. Dalyell: I understand that the Minister is not time-limited. A number of us put questions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is time-limited to 11.30 p.m.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not limited to 10 o'clock, and the Minister is wrong in saying that he has to stop at 10 o'clock. The Minister was asked a number of specific questions. He was asked especially about the role of Sir Maurice Oldfield and what Sir Maurice does.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State think that he is Mr. Speaker as well?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asking a question of the Minister of State?
Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister concludes his reply, I ask him to remember that he was asked a number of questions by various hon. Members.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Sit down.
Mr. Dalyell: That is too cheap by half. Important questions have been asked. A number of them relate to the appointment of Sir Maurice Old field, what he does, what his job is supposed to be, and whether it is not highly counter-productive.
Mr. Bradford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister has mistakenly regarded himself as tied to a 10 o'clock time limit, will you make it clear that it is possible for him to answer some of the precise questions that have been put in the debate by writing to the hon. Members concerned.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Minister's reason for resuming his seat was not correct. There is no time limit. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not answer any more questions because of the time limit. I thought that he had to resume his place at 10 o'clock, and that is why I let him off the hook. It is an important debate, and I plead with the Minister to resume, by leave of the House, and to complete his reply. There will be no time taken from the next order if he does so.
Mr. Alison: I obviously want to help the House. I have been accused by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) of being too cheap by half. I

1205
do not know what my price was when I started, but it sems that there has been a change in the currency.
When a debate takes place in which many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate, it is usually an imposition for a Minister to take half an hour to reply to it. To be invited to continue beyond half an hour is not necessarily in the best interests of the House. However, I shall trespass on the time of the House for another two or three minutes to deal with the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian about Sir Maurice Oldfield.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the appointment of Sir Maurice was overtly presented as having a direct and beneficial contribution to make towards the further enhancement of security in Northern Ireland. The nature of the appointment, and the nature of the work that he does, means that I cannot spell out in great detail the exact contribution that he makes. However, it is one that is important and valid. The fruits of his efforts are already becoming evident in the effectiveness of the security effort that we are able to develop in the Province and to deliver. I cannot say more than that without trespassing on sensitive areas of security. It would not help a great deal if I did so. Sir Maurice is experienced in an area in which intelligence and covert operations are crucial factors in the performance of the Provisional IRA and of the forces that we deploy against it. Against the background of his wide experience, his contribution is useful, positive and constructive. I make no apology for the presence of Sir Maurice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from being too specific about the nature of the work that he does.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked a specific question about the Ruger pistol and the extent to which it is in deployment.
As my right hon. Friend informed the House earlier, a continuous process must be undergone when a new weapon is brought in. A gradual process of training and subsequent issue is then set in hand. That process of training and equipping the police service began only recently. Several men have already been trained and the weapons are now beginning to be issued. I cannot say whether a shot has yet been fired in anger. Cer-
1206
tainly shots have been fired in training, and I am happy to say that I have had the advantage of shooting the Ruger on the range, alongside the Walther, in order to establish precisely its relative effectiveness. I am convinced of the usefulness of that weapon. It will be widely deployed in the Province in due course.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) suggested that we might publish the yellow card. The yellow card is in some ways misunderstood, and that is why it is necessary to make reference to it and to give good reasons for not publishing it. The yellow card is designed to give guidance to the individual soldier about the circumstances in which it is reasonable to open fire. Provided that he adheres to that guidance, he should be within the law. However, it must be emphasised that the document does not have the force of law and confers no immunity. Soldiers remain answerable to the courts at all times, and I see no purpose in disclosing an essentially administrative document.
Mr. Fitt: Earlier today I referred to section 8 concerning the admissibility of evidence and confessions by accused persons. I understand that there have been a number of cases in Northern Ireland in which the accused has allegedly made a voluntary confession. However, when the case came to court the judge refused to accept the confession as evidence on the ground that it had not been made voluntarily. That implies that the confession was obtained by some other means and leads to a direct criticism of the police and their methods of interrogation. If a judge is forced to the conclusion that a confession has not been given voluntarily, and that the police have used tactics that should not have been used, should those policemen be allowed to remain as interrogators? Should an inquiry take place, or should the police be shifted from that work?
Mr. Alison: Strict and factual precision is unattainable in these cases. The burden is placed on the prosecution to prove that the confession was voluntary, and that is almost impossible to achieve because of the privacy of engagements between the interviewers and the prisoner. It can be evaluated only by a gut feeling, in which judges are expert. It is that which leads to the success or failure of the prosecution's attempt to prove that

1207
prima facie evidence of coercion was not present. If the prosecution fails to convince the judge, it does not necessarily mean that coercion has been used. It means only that on the balance of possibility the judge cannot accept it. To say that all those involved in questioning must automatically be self-evidently guilty of something that they have not been tried for would be to carry the case too far. We cannot accede to the
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No.2)
reasonable suggestion made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
I have tried to help the House as best I can, but hon. Members may wish answers to many other questions. I shall be better able to answer them in dealing with a series of oral or written questions, and I shall do my best to satisfy the House on that basis.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 18.

Division No. 124]

AYES

[10.10 pm

Alexander, Richard

Fox, Marcus

Paisley, Rev Ian

Alison, Michael

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Parris, Matthew

Ancram, Michael

Fry, Peter

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Arnold, Tom

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Pawsey, James

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Golding, John

Pendry, Tom

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Goodhart, Philip

Penhaligon, David

Beith, A. J.

Gow, Ian

Porter, George

Bendell, Vivian

Gower, Sir Raymond

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Best, Keith

Graham, Ted

Proctor, K. Harvey

Bevan, David Gilroy

Greenway, Harry

Rhodes James, Robert

Blackburn, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Blaker, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Haselhurst, Alan

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Bradford, Rev. R.

Hawksley, Warren

Rossi, Hugh

Braine, Sir Bernard

Heddle, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Bright, Graham

Henderson, Barry

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Brinton, Tim

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Shersby, Michael

Brotherton, Michael

Hooson, Tom

Silvester, Fred

Browne, John (Winchester)

Howells, Geraint

Skeet, T. H. H.

Buck, Antony

John, Brynmor

Speller, Tony

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sproat, Iain

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Kilfedder, James A.

Stainton, Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Lawrence, Ivan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Lee, John

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stradling Thomas, J.

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Tebbit, Norman

Colvin, Michael

McCusker, H.

Temple-Morris, Peter

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Macfarlane, Neil

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Costain, A. P.

MacGregor, John

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Crouch, David

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Thornton, Malcolm

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

McQuade, John

Trippier, David

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Major, John

Viggers, Peter

Dixon, Donald

Marland, Paul

Wakeham, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Mather, Carol

Waldegrave, Hon William

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mawby, Ray

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Dover, Denshore

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Waller, Gary

Dunlop, John

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Ward, John

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Miscampbell, Norman

Watson, John

Durant, Tony

Molyneaux, James

Wheeler, John

Eggar, Timothy

Montgomery, Fergus

Whitlock, William

English, Michael

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Wickenden, Keith

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mudd, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Needham, Richard

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Neubert, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Fookes, Miss Janet

Newton, Tony

Mr. John Cope and

Forrester, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Mr. David Waddington.

NOES

Alton, David

Kerr, Russell

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Lamond, James

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Winnick, David

Canavan, Dennis

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

Cryer, Bob

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Dalyell, Tam

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Mr. Gerard Fitt and

Dobson, Frank

Soley, Clive

Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Flannery, Martin

Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28 November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
10.20 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have guidance on whether the appropriation order can last for one and a half hours or three hours?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The order can last for one and a half hours from now.
10.21 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.
This order will be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members, in accordance with our usual practice in these matters, have been kind enough to give me warning of the major topics that they wish to raise during the debate. What I propose to do, with the leave of the House, is to make some general observations relevant to these topics before I come to specific items in the appropriation order, leaving it to my ministerial colleagues to intervene on matters of detail within their areas of responsibility.
The Government fully recognise the special needs and circumstances of the Province. In our election manifesto we acknowledged that Northern Ireland industry would continue to require Government support. That commitment was ratified in July when, following the statement that the geographical extent of the assisted areas and levels of assistance available in Great Britain were being reduced, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he had no plans to change the level or forms of assistance in Northern Ireland.
The package currently on offer in Northern Ireland remains highly attractive and compares favourably with what is on offer elsewhere. It is carefully designed to lead to the creation of as many new jobs as possible, and we have recently had a number of successes in attracting new companies to Northern
1210
Ireland, for example, American Monitor International Limited with 250 jobs and the National Supply Company (UK) with 150 jobs.
While attempting to attract overseas capital to Northern Ireland, we also recognise the need to encourage local firms to invest and expand. I therefore take this opportunity to remove a misconception. Locally generated projects are, and will continue to be, backed every bit as generously as those originating from outside. Recently two local companies demonstrated their confidence in the Province's future by expanding their operations. The Burlington (Savile Row) Shirts Limited and Cooneen Knitwear Company Limited have both announced 200 extra jobs. It is particularly encouraging that these additional employment opportunities are in areas of high unemployment.
We are still not complacent with our performance in that area and have therefore initiated reviews of both the industrial development incentives and the institutional framework within which they are administered. These reviews are now complete and the reports have beers submitted to Ministers. They are presently receiving consideration and it is hoped that they will provide a sound basis for future decisions about the handling of industrial development in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
It is part of our policy that the Government should not hold assets which can be disposed of profitably to the private sector, thus releasing resources for other purposes. At the moment, an internal examination is being conducted of the land and property holdings of all Northern Ireland Departments to ascertain what is surplus to current needs and may therefore be sold off. One immediate outcome of this review relates to the premises at Donegall Square North, Belfast, which are currently used by the Department of the Environment's water service. Although it has historic links with water administration, this building is not being used economically for office purposes and it occupies a prime site of great commercial importance in the city shopping area. As soon as other suitable accommodation for the staff now working in the building has been identified, offers will be invited for its purchase for commercial

1211
use. Any such use would, however, have to be fully compatible with its status as a listed building of architectural and historic merit.
This policy is also consistent with our proposals for the sale of Housing Executive houses. We intend to offer Northern Ireland tenants the same opportunities as those in Great Britain to buy their own homes. Discounts of up to 50 per cent. of current market value will be available to long-standing tenants. We hope that this policy will ease the burden on the Housing Executive, which will continue to make a major contribution to Northern Ireland's housing needs, particularly in inner Belfast, where considerable new building in redevelopment areas will be required.
My preceding remarks illustrate our concern with the economic and social situation in Northern Ireland and our intention to ensure that the available funds are used to the best effect. But it is also important to remember that Governments also act as agents for change in ways which make a marginal claim on resources but which may significantly affect people's lives by altering the framework of law within which their activities are conducted. I regard this as a very important part of the Government's task, and I should like to mention briefly three areas where changes in the law are being contemplated or are already being actively promoted.
The first concerns the law on liquor licensing in Northern Ireland. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, an interdepartmental review body has been looking at this complicated subject. It has presented its report and I am impressed by the thoroughness with which the body has discharged the remit given to it. I hope that the report will be published before Christmas. I would stress that the Government are in no way committed to accepting the recommendations in the report but will be seeking the views both of right hon. and hon. Members and of the general public who are concerned about this important subject.
The second matter is the law on gambling. Again—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but could he identify the section in the Supplementary
1212
Estimates to which he is drawing attention?
Mr. Rossi: It comes within miscellaneous administrative matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood from reading the draft order that we were to be prohibited from discussing housing, as there is nothing on housing in these Estimates. Yet the Minister has referred to the most contentious and controversial event in Northern Ireland, the selling of Housing Executive houses. May we during this discussion talk about the sale of Housing Executive houses?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The sale of houses in Northern Ireland by the housing trust comes, I understand, under the Department of the Environment. There is no reference to environment at all, as far as I can see, in this order. I should like clarification of the matter. I also proposed to raise it as I felt that when Northern Ireland Members spoke they would be restricted to the order. I should like to know whether there will be sauce for the goose as well as the gander.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the subject of the sale of houses arose, presumably that would appear in the Estimates as an increased appropriation in aid and would therefore not be discussable in any case.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the assistance of the right hon. and hon. Members. That is precisely why I asked the Minister a question.
Mr. Rossi: I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. If the House does not wish me to pursue these matters, I shall certainly not do so. The only question is this. I understood, on taking over this particular responsibility, that, irrespective of the narrowness of what might appear to be the appropriate debate on an appropriation order, in the past right hon. and hon. Gentlemen indicated to Ministers the areas that they wished to discuss. Ministers tried to be as helpful as possible and broach those matters. However, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not wish to discuss these matters,

1213
I am quite content to give a few detailed figures on the order and sit down. I am as perfectly happy to take two minutes as I am to take 20.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the House. The Minister and the House must confine themselves to the autumn Supplementary Estimates and must not refer to anything that is outside this document.
Mr. Rossi: Of course I accept your ruling at once, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make two observations? First, in conformity with the ruling which you have just given, may I say that on previous occasions, when hon. Members have given notice of subjects which they hoped to raise in these debates, they were subjects which were within the particular Votes appearing in the appropriation order. Secondly, on the point of order—I hope that this might be of some satisfaction to the Minister of State—may I point out that to deal with these matters on appropriation orders, as we are obliged to do in Northern Ireland, rather than upon a Consolidated Fund Bill, as applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, prevents hon. Members and Ministers from giving a more rational survey of the financial and administrative position. This is therefore perhaps something which should be considered by the Government on a larger scale.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is as may be. However, tonight we are discussing the autumn Supplementary Estimates. The matter mentioned by the Minister might be raised, for instance, on an order containing a vote on account or something of that kind, but not tonight.
Mr. Rossi: May I reply to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am most grateful to him, particularly for his second point. It was because of his second point that I understood, obviously mistakenly now that I have the ruling from the Chair, that the convention had grown so that the matter could be treated in a wider way than perhaps it would otherwise be treated. I shall move on immediately. I must seek other opportunities of making the announcements which I hoped to make this evening and which I thought would be of interest to right hon. and hon. Members and people in the Province.
1214
I turn immediately to the details of the draft order. The main Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments for 1979–80 amounted to £1,642 million and were appropriated by the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which were approved by this House on 7 March and 26 July 1979 respectively.
The main purpose of the draft order now before the House is to authorise the issue out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of a further £33 million and the appropriation of this sum for the purposes indicated in the first schedule. The making of this order would bring the total 1979–80 provision to date for voted expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments to £1,675 million—about £153 million above the aggregate Estimates provision for 1978–79. The cash-limited element of the provision now sought is within the approved cash limit for Northern Ireland departmental services. The draft order also repeals certain appropriation enactments, and those are detailed in the second schedule.
I should like to take this opportunity to explain briefly the relationship between the Estimates and the public expenditure survey. The making of the proposed order would bring the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments for the current financial year to about £1,675 million. The provision for Northern Ireland departmental services this year in the recently published White Paper on public expenditure is in the region of £2,000 million. The difference between the two sums is mainly accounted for by the fact that certain items of public expenditure are not voted annually by Parliament and consequently do not appear in the Estimates volumes. The best example is expenditure from the national insurance fund on contributory benefits such as retirement pensions. To complete the picture, I should mention that even the £2,000 million is not the end of the story, because it does not include expenditure in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Army. When those items are taken into account, the grand total is nearer £2,300 million.
The services for which additional funds are being sought in the draft order are

1215
set out in the autumn Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which are available to right hon. and hon. Members in the Library. I should like to draw attention to some of the main items in the Estimates.
In Class I, Vote 2, a net addition of £16·9 million is being sought for the continuation of certain agricultural support schemes. About £13·4 million will be used to enable Northern Ireland meat plants to compete for fat cattle and pigs, and that will help to maintain about 4,000 jobs. About £4·9 million will be used to cover payments under the milk aid and feed price allowance schemes. These increases are partly offset by a reduction of about £1·4 million in the provision for the special land improvement scheme.
In Class VIII, Vote 2, the additional provision of £1 million being sought is accounted for by increased grants to the Queen's University of Belfast and the new University of Ulster. The increases follow recommendations by the University Grants Committee.
I turn to the Department of Health and Social Services. The additional provision now sought in Class X, Vote 2, noncontributory benefits, is £11·7 million, which is primarily to fund the recent up-rating of benefits. The largest increase is £9·6 million for supplementary benefits, though there are also an additional £800,000 for attendance allowance and £400,000 for mobility allowance, plus, for example, the Christmas bonus which was paid last week.
At a time when the growth in public expenditure is being curtailed, the increases are clear pledges of the Government's intention to continue to help the less-well-off members of the community.
Our concern does not stop with the measures that I have just described. As already announced, we shall be assisting the poor with their fuel bills this winter. The higher cost of most fuels in Northern Ireland is being recognised in two respects. The rate of heating additions under the supplementary benefits scheme is already higher there than in Great Britain and a payment of £15 each will be made next spring to all Northern Ireland householders on supplementary benefit and to those receiving family income supplement, rent or rate rebates and rent allowances.
1216
In Class X, Vote 4, which provides for the administration expenses of the Department of Health and Social Services, £1·6 million of the £2·1 million being sought results from pay increases. The remaining £½ million arises from a revision of the forecast of appropriations-in-aid.
I commend the order to the House. I apologise if I have wandered too widely. I was seeking to be helpful. If questions which are not permissible are asked or if answers are not provided, I or my colleagues will reply by letter.
10.40 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: In general we welcome the order. We recognise the importance of the proposed funded amounts but we wish to make some observations about those amounts. I am grateful for the ruling that this is a narrow debate, and I hope that my contribution will be in order.
I return to a theme voiced on several occasions during similar debates—the way in which we debate these orders. On a number of occasions we have said that we are at a great disadvantage because of the confusion which surrounds these debates. Until the Minister speaks, we do not know the background and detail of the sums involved. When I was the Minister responsible for introducing a similar debate in March this year, I was pressed from all sides of the House to ensure that such debates made more sense. I saw the force of the argument and undertook to examine ways of finding a better method of presentation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) returned to the subject when we last debated the order, and yet once again we are in a fog. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter. His experience a few minutes ago may help him to understand the position and encourage him to consider how we may have a more meaningful debate next time.
I congratulate the Government on Class I, Vote 2, which continues the previous Government's policy of giving support to agriculture, especially to the farmers who are most vulnerable to outside pressures. I refer to the meat industry employment scheme and the milk aid scheme. It is right to retain the level of assistance in those respects.

1217
The Government must not be complacent about the growing problems of the farming community and the processing industries. Is the Minister aware of the result of a computer exercise by the Ulster farmers' union based on the model of the Northern Ireland farm? It shows that, taking into account the trends, including the downward trend in the supply of store cattle from Eire, Northern Ireland needs 70,000 more cows than it had at the June 1979 census if the 1974 productivity level is to be achieved. It further indicates that since the 1979 census cows have been slaughtered at a high rate. A survey of a substantial sample of markets, over a six-week period between September and October of this year, showed that sales of farm fat cows for slaughter were 94 per cent. higher than in the same period last year.
In general, Northern Ireland does not suit the arable alternatives to grass. The best use for land in Northern Ireland is for growing grass for cattle and sheep, as I am sure the Minister knows. The shortage of cattle is clearly of serious concern to the farming community in Northern Ireland and requires urgent remedial action by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), when Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, initiated a review of marginal land in the United Kingdom to assess whether there should be an extension of the less favoured areas policy where there are payments, as the House knows, to encourage the keeping of beef cows.
What has happened to that survey? Has it been completed? If so, what was the outcome? If not, what are the obstacles? It is important to the farmers in Northern Ireland. They want a substantial extension of the less favoured areas policy. Such an extension would most certainly encourage the expansion of the herd of beef cows in Northern Ireland that is essential to maintain productivity on the farms and in the processing industry.
I ask the Minister to make some encouraging noises tonight for the agriculture and allied industries. Most of all, those industries want him to give them some confidence for expansion and to dispel the uncertainty that has surrounded them over the past few years. I believe that they deserve some encouragement from the Government.
1218
I turn to Class II, Vote 2, which is related to the expenditure of the Department of Manpower Services. At a time when the industry of Northern Ireland needs all the assistance it can get, it seems crazy that under the perverse heading "Industrial Support and Regeneration" we see the last sum to be paid out for selective employment payments. Already we can see the effects of the removal of that payment, especially in the small industries of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will give his own assessment of this piece of Government folly. With unemployment rising so sharply, this must be a significant factor.
On Class II, Vote 6, I ask the Minister to spell out exactly where the £196,000 is to be spent under the fuel discount scheme, which, I understand, is being phased out. Will the claimants be the elderly and the disabled? Perhaps the Minister could be more specific than is clear from the order. This Vote also covers the salary requirements of the Department of Commerce. I understand that part of the money will be allocated to the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, which, I understand, has a small staff but does a good job. Perhaps it could do an even more valuable job if it was seen to be more independent of the Government and of that particular Department. In the eyes of the community, the council must be clearly seen as independent and we should not fudge the edges. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about this because consumer advice is of enormous importance to the people of Northern Ireland.
There is a general need for the Government to do something more to ensure that there are adequate funds available to assist the people of Northern Ireland. After all, they are living in the most socially deprived region in the United Kingdom. They live in an area where the cost of solid fuel, gas and bread is much higher than it is in Great Britain. I could go on listing the disadvantages to the consumer in Northern Ireland. The list is almost endless.
How does the Minister see the future pattern of consumer advice and protection developing? Outside of the consumer council—I said that it had a small staff; it has a staff of one—there are only three consumer advice centres in Northern Ireland run by the local authorities, with

1219
help from the Department of Commerce, in Londonderry, Belfast and Newry. I hope that I am wrong, but there are rumours that the grants to these bodies are to cease. I hope that the Minister will dispel those rumours.
Also on this subject, perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government propose to increase grants to the citizens advice bureaux in line with Government policy in Great Britain. I hope so, but I hope that it will not be at the expense of the advice centres and of the consumer council. Perhaps the Minister will be forthcoming on that point.
I turn to Class VIII, Vote 2, where a sum of £1,038,000 is being sought. I cannot help thinking that more is needed. I believe that special help is needed for Northern Ireland universities. Looking at their geographical locations, in Coleraine and Belfast, there are many problems. The staff at the universities have problems when travelling to conferences. They also have problems in connection with their research facilities because of the cost of buying equipment. It is well known that in Northern Ireland laboratory and computer equipment is more expensive than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Has a comparative study been made of the universities in the rest of the United Kingdom as distinct from those in Northern Ireland? Such a study may be revealing and it may be a way of ensuring that the universities in Northern Ireland get a better deal than they get now.
Another area of concern is the declining number of students in those universities, especially in the new university. Able school leavers are seeking university places in Great Britain. Some 30 per cent. of the total number of those eligible for university places go to Great Britain. The brain drain takes on a new and frightening meaning in this context. Having gone to Great Britain, they are not coming back in great numbers to take their rightful places in society in Northern Ireland. That must worry the Government. I hope that something will be done about that.
That is coupled with even more alarming evidence. A recent survey carried out by Queen's University shows that over the past 10 years only 8 per cent. of that uni-
1220
versity's entrants came from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds. In the same period, 57 per cent. of the intake came from the two highest social groups in Northern Ireland. That pattern, says the survey—and I am sure it is right—is a direct result of the social, economic and educational factors prevailing within the Province. What do the Government propose to do about that disturbing trend?
We shall almost certainly want to return to this subject at some length, but, within the confines of the order, debate is limited. I hope that on some future occasion we shall be joined by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament who, I am sure, must be as concerned as we are about this trend.
Finally, on Class X, Votes 2 and 4, we welcome the amounts relating to the non-contributory invalidity pensions, the invalid allowance, the mobility allowance and other allowances. But will the Minister explain the decrease in Votes 2 and 4–£286,000 and £522,000 respectively? In this area we should not be happy with any decrease at all. They may be explained to my satisfaction, but at the moment I can think of no good reason for them.
I welcome the order but look forward to the Minister's reply on the specific matters that I have raised.
10.55 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to raise some matters on this order of which I have given prior notice. I want to raise an agricultural matter under Class I and a selective employment matter under Class II.
I welcome the subsidy to the meat industry. I should like, however, to press upon the Minister the need to investigate the great disparity between the meat plants in Northern Ireland and their opportunities and the meat plants in the Republic as a result of the intervention policy. In the Republic, a larger percentage can go into intervention than is permitted in the Northern Ireland meat plants. This is causing serious trouble and a serious rundown in our meat plants.
I should like the Minister to say what decisive steps he is taking to safeguard what is left of our meat processing industry. This is a matter of concern to all hon. Members with agricultural constituencies and to those in the centres where

1221
the meat plants operate. The Minister can perhaps tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure at least parity with the Republic in order to safeguard vital jobs. We cannot afford to see our meat plants run down. We need the industry and the employment that it provides.
I want to refer to the apple producers of County Armagh. I know that this is a subject in which the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) is interested. As the Minister knows, the Killyman factory was erected, through a large EEC grant, for the production of pure apple juice. It had a good run and proved helpful to the Bramley apple producers in County Armagh.
A derogation was then introduced to the EEC rule under which the addition of citric acid to sweet apple juice was permitted. This cut out the market for the pure apple juice produced at Killyman. As a result, the Killyman factory has come almost, if not completely, to a standstill. The apple growers have no outlet for their apples.
I raised this matter in Strasbourg yesterday. It is an EEC matter. I received an assurance from the Commissioner that he would recommend to the Council of Ministers that this derogation should be rescinded. That would be a great help. But this morning, on the radio, another Member for a Northern Ireland constituency, Mr. John Taylor, accused all Northern Ireland Members of this House of being responsible for this situation, having pushed a measure through the House. It is impossible for hon. Members to know everything that goes through the House. I am sure, however, that no Northern Ireland Member would wish to do down the apple growers of County Armagh. I have no recollection of such an order. Perhaps the Minister will say whether it was a negative order. Did we have any say at all in the matter? Will he also say how he proposes to save the factory?
It is essential that the Minister should put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture, who sits in the Council of Ministers. I know that the Minister can throw his weight about in Northern Ireland. I hope he will see that our Minister is forthright in supporting the Commission's recommendation. Jobs are at risk. I trust that the Minister will do something about it. It is hardly fair for Members of this
1222
House to be blamed for something about which they did not know. We should like to see this matter rectified.
Mr. James Kilfedder: No one ever believes John Taylor any more.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is very nice of the hon. Gentleman to say that. I am not saying it. It would not do.
All that I am saying is that it is important to save these jobs in Northern Ireland. I trust that they will be saved.
I draw attention to Class VIII in regard to the Department of Education. There is a lot of controversy in Northern Ireland about teacher training places. We are told that there are far too many. Now that the Minister is giving these grants for teacher training to the two universities, I should like to know the position in regard to the other teacher training places. If he will be concentrating his grants on the two universities in this matter, what does he have in mind for the other teacher training establishments?
I welcome what is to be given in supplementary benefits. Of course,;£15 is a very small amount today, especially in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, with the terrible cost of energy and other difficulties for those who are drawing supplementary and other benefits. Has the Minister looked realistically at this matter? What does he have in mind for future grants to these people, who are in dire straits and dire need?
I have one last question about this obnoxious Northern Ireland Assembly, which I thought had gone completely out of existence. I see that its appropriation-in-aid has been increased by £2,000. I understand that a new Clerk has been appointed to the Assembly—the Assembly that does not exist. Is the £28,000 mentioned to do with the work that the Clerk does? Perhaps the Minister could list the Clerk's duties.
I understand that the previous Clerk had very little to do, and he was appointed as chairman of the liquor investigation, which comes under Class III—regulation of trading practices. I am very glad that the committee has reported. Many of us appeared before it when it was taking evidence. I am glad that the Minister is to ensure that the report is published. I also welcome the fact that

1223
he will be taking further representations about the report's recommendations. I am glad that he is not tying himself to abiding exactly by the report.
I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The previous Clerk, Mr. Blackburn, was held in very high esteem by those who worked with him. I think that my former colleagues in Stormont would agree with me about Mr. Blackburn. Mr. John Kennedy, who has got the appointment, is also held in very high esteem by those who know him. Of course, we have nothing against these individuals, but we would like to know exact details of the expenditure under this heading.
11.3 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: I should like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the apple juice processing factory at Killyman. The Minister responsible for agriculture knows of my interest in the matter. I wrote to him some months ago. He said then that his hands were tied because of the derogation and because of action taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here. I welcome the fact that this derogation is now to be removed. I hope that the Minister will act urgently on the matter and ensure that the situation in Killyman improves.
I suppose that we are lucky, if that is how one describes the fact that there has been a poor crop of Bramley apples this year and the fact that production is only half of what it was last year. The demand that one might have expected on the basis of last year's production has not materialised, so there is an opportunity to do something without damaging the industry too much. I welcome the work that has been done at Strasbourg. I hope that the Minister will now act on it.
I turn to Class VIII—expenditure by the Department of Education. The burning education issue of the decade, which affects all levels of education, is selection at 11-plus, when children move from primary education to secondary and higher education. I appreciate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. If the hon. Gentleman considers the details of the expenditure, he will understand that the
1224
subject that he is now discussing is not included.
Mr. McCusker: If I had been given enough time, I think that I could have justified the comments that I wish to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The quality of those moving on to higher education and teacher training, for example, depends largely on what happens at 11-plus and at successive stages.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman is saying may be appropriate for another occasion. At present we are dealing with the sum of £1,038,000, and only matters that contribute to that sum are relevant.
Mr. McCusker: I could contend what a leading teachers' union in the Province has contended, that if the transfer procedure currently in operation in Northern Ireland continues, at least six secondary schools will be closed in Belfast, with all the ramifications that that will have for teacher training and resulting redundancies. On other occasions we have had the opportunity to discuss, within certain limits, issues which were not specifically covered. I understand the calling to order of a Member who has strayed well beyond the limits that are set down, but I hope that a discussion on selection at 11-plus will be permitted. However, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I need go no further than that.
Mr. McCusker: Call someone else then, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
11.7 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I refer to the expenditure by the Department of Education on higher and further education. I hope that I shall not fall foul of the Chair. I take up remarks that I made recently in the House on religious segregation in schools. It is sad that in the area of higher education in Ulster, the only sector that has stood out against the principle of non-denominational provision is teacher training.
I shall deal with teacher training, the universities and the role that they have to play. Separate colleges for Roman Catholic and Protestant students who intend to become teachers is one of the least attractive aspects of our Irish heritage. Whatever defence is put forward in favour of the system in the Irish

1225
Republic, it should never have been permitted to last so long in Northern Ireland.
The existence of separate sectarian teaching colleges, supported by public funds, is a denial of the fundamental right of youngsters to be educated in a free and liberal atmosphere. Everyone in the House should seek to ensure that youngsters may grow up without their minds being bruised by a form of education that forces them to regard themselves as part of one division or another. It is sad that that position still exists in the Province.
Fortunately, there is evidence that teacher training colleges are losing out to the university department of education and to the Ulster polytechnic, which are not sectarian controlled. The continuing decline in the number of primary schoolchildren and in the number of students to be admitted to teacher training colleges provides a challenging opportunity to the Government to tackle the issue of separate sectarian institutions for the training of teachers. It is worth considering the figures because they are revealing.
In 1973, of the 1,388 students admitted to courses at teacher training institutions, only 701 were admitted to teacher training colleges. The remaining 687 went to the universities and to the polytechnic. In 1977, four years later, of 920 admissions only 388 went to the three colleges of education—Stranmillis, St. Mary's and St. Joseph's. The colleges used to accommodate 1,800 students at Stranmillis and 400 to 500 each at St. Mary's and St. Joseph's, the two Roman Catholic colleges.
I do not know how many of next year's 620 students will go to the three teacher training colleges, but I surmise that it will be under 300. No one can justify on any grounds the present maintenance of buildings and staff for the purpose of admitting only 300 students. The total intake will be fewer than that at Stranmillis only a few years ago, and that has now to be spread among the three colleges.
At a time when the money available for primary and secondary education and for technical institutions is so short, and at a time when the Government are having to impose a charge for school transport and a greater charge for school meals, the taxpayers' money is being squandered by
1226
keeping three outworn and outdated teacher training colleges in existence. There is scope—I hope that the Government will pay heed to this—for saving several million pounds each year by abolishing all three colleges. The two universities and the polytechnic scheme are responsible for the training of all teachers. Those millions of pounds could be spent each year directly to help young people. Public money has always been the crux of the issue. When the Churches became involved in the 1870s after the Royal Commission, the Churches wished to use taxpayers' money for the maintenance of religious schools. It is sad to reflect that the good secular national system of education that existed in Ireland prior to 1870 was abandoned by those who wished to further religious education.
I asked some questions of the Minister some weeks ago about expenditure by the Ulster polytechnic, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), the Opposition spokesman. It appears that £100,000 had been paid to lecturers at the polytechnic in travel costs, subsistence and expenses. Surely that figure cannot be justified. I hope that the Government plan to investigate it fully and consider how it can be reduced. It could be halved. Is any part of that expenditure included in the £1,038,000 that is mentioned in the appropriation order?
Finally, I refer to the expenditure by the Department of Commerce on consumer protection. There are matters that require detailed investigation. We are at the Christmas season, when the public are being bombarded by advertisers presenting items that they may purchase for their homes or for their children.
I was astounded to hear that last week a well-known supermarket firm—it has branches throughout the Province—had its staff busily engaged on adding 10p to the price of most of the items on sale. I cannot believe that this is permitted under existing law. Perhaps the Minister will look into this matter. It means that that supermarket firm, with branches throughout the Province, is cashing in on Christmas by adding an extra 10p on food and other items. I believe that the matter ought to be investigated. I did not see this with my own eyes. I have been told about it by someone, and I believe that I can rely on what she said. However, I shall

1227
give the name of the firm to the Minister and perhaps he will investigate this case. Indeed, there may well be other cases where people are being overcharged.
Surely, if the items have already been purchased by the firm, they should be sold at the original price displayed on those articles, and the price should not be increased. More attention should be paid to consumer protection, because I believe that the people of Northern Ireland are not getting a fair deal from the manufacturers.
11.17 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The terms of this debate place us at a great disadvantage in that we are restricted by the way in which the order has been drawn up. An even greater restriction is the time that has been allotted to the debate, because there are 10 Northern Ireland Members present and I am quite certain that each would want to debate at some length what is contained in the order.
I am sure that I can speak for most of the Northern Ireland Members—I hope that they do not think it impertinent of me—when I say that each time such Estimates are before us we look at the issue to be discussed and the first question that hits us is whether it creates job opportunities or whether it will bring about job losses. With Northern Ireland's sad history, that is of paramount importance to each constituency representative here.
The Minister mentioned the public expenditure that will be entailed. If the debate were not so restricted, I would pose a lot of questions on that issue alone. I recognise that many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland wish to intervene, so I shall be as brief as possible.
Class II relates to the Department of Manpower Services and the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce is responsible for attracting industry to Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Minister mentioned that the Department had been able to attract two factories within recent weeks. I congratulate him on being able to do so, but he must offset that against the number of factories that have closed down throughout Northern Ireland, and particularly in my constituency, during the past year. Therefore,
1228
any job attraction that has been achieved by the American company Strathearn Audio is grievously offset by the number of people who have lost their jobs. One can think of Hughes's bakery, which was forced to close down a number of months ago. As a result a number of people lost their jobs, and they will not be offset by the jobs that have been attracted.
Can the Minister give us any hope that in the coming weeks or months he will be able to take any tangible steps to alleviate the terrible scourge of unemployment in my constituency of Belfast, West and, indeed, throughout Northern Ireland? Can he say how many employers in my constituency are in receipt of the selective employment payments that are mentioned in Class II? Could they be extended to make it possible for employers in the constituency to increase their work or labour forces?
Class X covers expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Services. There are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister. Will he indicate how many people in the DHSS are employed in the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act? When that Act went through the House with all-party support, it was fervently believed that it would generate good will and help for the chronically sick and disabled. I have been disappointed by reports I have received that the Act is not as helpful as it should be. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Act does not become pigeon-holed and that it is put into operation. Thousands of disabled people in Northern Ireland were expecting to receive benefit from the Act.
Are the same criteria used for the payments of attendance allowances in Northern Ireland as are used in other parts of the United Kingdom? I have appeared at tribunal after tribunal trying to get an attendance allowance for somebody who I believed deserved it. It would appear that the criteria for granting it are so restrictive that the person has to be lying absolutely useless for 25 hours a day to receive it. The benefit is in name only—far more people are refused the allowance than receive it. People's expectations are being built up, and nobody wants to claim an allowance that he does not think he is entitled to.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman said that he has

1229
attended a number of tribunals. Will he give the House details? I find that the most difficult thing is to get a tribunal to determine the granting of an attendance allowance.
Mr. Fitt: The doctor should attend at the patient's house and a number of questions on a form are answered. However, most people are not aware of the answers which should be given which would entitle them to the benefit, and I have never heard of a medical practitioner attending a patient and saying that the patient was entitled to the allowance. Cases always go to appeal.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Appeals are heard on points of law only, which makes the matter much more difficult.
Mr. Fitt: The benefit is meant to help those who are unable to help themselves. The literature on the subject leads people to believe that they are entitled to the benefit when they are not. Much despair and disappointment are caused when the benefit is refused. To some extent, the same arguments apply to the mobility allowance.
I ask the Minister to be more humane and compassionate He is dealing with those who cannot do things for themselves. Therefore, I press him about those allowances. Also, I ask him to give me, as the constituency representative, an indication of steps that he hopes to take in West Belfast to try to alleviate the chronic scourge of unemployment.
11.24 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) about the restricted time available for the debate. Even though these winter Supplementary Estimates are narrower than the other Estimates in the annual cycle, one lesson to be learnt is that it is unwise to deal with a renewal order and an appropriation order on the same day.
I support what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said about the extraordinarily, baffling phenomena of applications for attendance and mobility allowances which have been refused, particularly in instances when they are refused although medical evidence is presented that is difficult to disagree with or doubt and which would have suggested an opposite result. The Minister in charge should institute
1230
a review of the whole working of application and adjudication on these two subjects.
I wanted to refer only to Class XI—
"For the expenditure of the Northen Ireland Assembly."
It may be surprising to hon. Members not closely interested in the affairs of the Province that the Assembly set up under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 is still in existence, hence this entry in the Estimates. It is in a state of suspended animation. It is, as it were, suppressed and kept underground by the 1974 Act, but it is there all the time, ready to revive at any moment, even if it is not being held in terrorem. That is a decision of the Government that is raised by this entry in the Supplementary Estimates and which ought to be challenged.
I notice that the Secretary of State, in the debate on 29 November, said that
"it would be profitless to discuss returning precisely to that system"—
that was,
"the system which obtained in the first five months of 1974"
—in fact the Assembly referred to in Class XI, Vote 1–
"because it was not acceptable then and I am sure that it would not be acceptable now."—[Official Report, 29 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1502.]
Whatever one may disagree with in the mouth of the Secretary of State, one is obliged to admit that fact. In that case, the question immediately arises that presumably the Government envisage removing from the statute book—and it was referred to earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford)—at any rate the portions of that Act that concern the Assembly and the Executive. Remarkably enough, however, that appears not to be the case.
A question was put to the Minister of State in the same debate on 29 November by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South as to whether the Government therefore proposed to remove the ghost—and it is rather a substantial ghost—from the statute book, with the fear and doubt that it still causes. The Minister replied that that
"is not a topic on which to make pronouncement when we are talking of the attempt to construct a new political or constitutional Act."
I cannot imagine a more difficult thesis to sustain than that the status of the existing constitutional Act is not called

1231
into question when one is discussing what the future constitution ought to be, especially when the Minister stated that, whatever it will be in the future, it certainly will not be the Assembly for which additional provision is made under Class XI of these Estimates.
The Minister of State continued—and this will be my last quotation from him:
"There is no point in the conference discussing the long-term constitutional future of Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend has said, that would be pointless and unproductive."—[Official Report, 29 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1610]
To an extent I would try to put a gloss upon those words in terms with which I would find it possible to agree, for if anything effective is to be done I think that there are two rules which the Government ought to have in mind. First, they must so proceed as to minimise and not maximise disagreements. Secondly, they must so proceed as to minimise and not maximize anxieties, especially needless anxieties about the future.
What has happened as a result of the precipitate action of the Government in invoking a constitutional conference is that they have done the opposite in both cases. They have taken a course that is bound to maximise antagonisms, because all will be duty bound who participate in such an exposed and public activity—and this is no criticism—to state their position as trenchantly and fully as possible, and to be seen by those they represent to be pushing their position to the utmost of which it is capable. So it is a device for maximising differences. It is a divisive device which minimises the chances of tolerance for whatever steps might be proposed.
Secondly, it has the effect of maximising anxieties, for if one lays out virtually, although not quite, the whole range of constitutional possibilities and the Government come forward, as they have done, and say "We don't care which it is, we are quite neutral as between these alternatives—except, of course, that we are not going to have the 1973 Act, though we are not proposing to take it off the statute book"—then everyone is in a state of suspended animation. Everyone expects that there will be a change. Everyone expects that there will be a major change. It is in the nature of circumstances in the Province that everyone fears
1232
a change which will be adverse, the most adverse, to his safety, to his hopes and to his aspirations.
I think that this entry in the schedule to the appropriation order, by recalling to the attention of the House the fact that an admittedly unworkable constitution, condemned by all concerned, is for some reason being kept in existence, capable of being reactivated at any moment, is a reminder of the dangers, the risks, not dissociated from risk to life and limb, which can be caused and, my hon. Friends and I believe, are being courted by the precipitate constitutional initiative recently taken—we hope it will not proceed very far—by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
11.32 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I intend to raise only two or three questions. I should like to return to the theme of unemployment raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), particularly under Class II. I hope that the Minister in his reply will give us some indication about the Belfast shipyard of Harland and Wolff. We are approaching the yuletide and the new year is ahead of us. It will probably be a pretty bleak year for a number of my constituents. Rumours are now coming from the yard that 1,200 jobs are in jeopardy. I ask the Minister, if he can, to give us an indication of the truth of the rumour.
Will the Minister also indicate, in relation to his review and monitoring of the position at Harland and Wolff, whether he believes that the work force has increased productivity, whether he is satisfied with the increase that has taken place, whether he is satisfied that the relationship between the work force and the management has improved, and whether he is happy with the work of the management of the yard. Will he also indicate whether there are any orders in the pipeline and whether there is any hope that he can offer to my constituents at this time?
With regard to the attendance allowance, raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, I also press the Minister to review this matter most urgently, because it affects a large number of people who have been left outside and are still in great need of this benefit. This applies to a number of gentlemen who like to be independent and do not like

1233
to say that they cannot feed themselves, cannot wash themselves and cannot go to the toilet themselves. Therefore, through embarrassment, if for no other reason, they do not give the answers that should be given. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he is also prepared to deal with this matter.
11.34 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): It might be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to answer some of the points raised by hon. Members concerning the activities of the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, under the portions of the appropriation which refer to them.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) raised in great seriousness the question facing the agriculture industry. This was echoed by comments made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). This concern is probably shared throughout this House. The outlook at present is not particularly bright, in view of the difficulties which have affected agriculture over the past year or so.
The hon. Member specifically asked about the state of the cattle herd. He asked for Government action. Since we last debated the appropriation orders in this House, there have been alterations in the rates of the meat industry employment scheme; there have been reductions in the shading to help the producers; and there have been changes in the intervention buying policy, which have been of immense importance during the flush season of October and November, when we bought into intervention at the rate of 600 tons a week, which was a new development. There have been changes in the hill cow and sheep subsidy and, although I expect that they are not fully acceptable in that they do not go as far as hill farmers would wish, they are, nevertheless, significant increases. There have been other attempts to improve confidence in this industry, the most significant of which has been the attempt by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to seek a further devaluation in the green pound of 5 per cent.
I recognise that what the industry needs is a feeling of confidence. I met the Ulster farmers' union yesterday and I am convinced that we have to make clear to it that the Government are determined to
1234
improve the conditions for this vital industry, which employs 10 per cent. of the Province's population. Actions already taken are indicative of this, but I accept that we must do much more to get rid of the lack of confidence in the industry, which has been the main reason for this decline in the breeding herd.
I also recognise that we cannot put matters right swiftly. It will take time. The fact that the breeding herd has fallen so low and the fact that milk yield this year will, most unusually, be down compared with the 5 or 6 per cent. growth year by year which we have had up to now, indicate the state which the industry has reached. I pledge that I shall do everything can to ensure that we restore a state of confidence to the industry. I have also asked that a member of the marketing team which the Minister of Agriculture has appointed shall visit the Province shortly. I am also pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will come to see for himself the conditions in the Province next month. I believe that it is vitally necessary to involve him.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) raised the question of the apple juice co-operative at Killyman. I am delighted to think that there may be some changes in the EEC directive on this matter, but I do not think that hon. Gentlemen should be too disheartened about not having been involved with it originally. That is not something which should concern the hon. Member for Antrim, North. As I recall, this arose from the fruit juice directive of the EEC, and if that had passed through the Committee which scrutinises secondary legislation it would most likely not have involved a matter of political substance and may well not have appeared before the House but would have proceeded by the normal route.
If that is so, what we have to do is ensure that this directive does allow us to continue the use of apple juice and results in the removal of citric from the permitted substances. I must remind hon. Members that citric acid has been widely used in the United Kingdom. It will take further negotiation and explanation between myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to clarify precisely what derogation the EEC is

1235
offering. Hon. Members can rest assured that I shall undertake those discussions with some urgency.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised matters concerning consumer protection. This subject was also raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I ask the hon. Member to let me have particulars of the double pricing which he appears to have found taking place in stores. It is a practice of which I totally disapprove, and I would wish to have information from him.
I refer to the question of consumer protection and the consumer council. In our general review of such bodies, we are looking closely at the future of consumer protection and the right way in which such bodies may be established. This is in line with what is going on within the United Kingdom as a whole. My understanding is that the degree of independence from the Government of those bodies is just as great as that of the equivalent bodies in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde feels that that is not so, he is probably referring to the arrangements made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for improving the degree of independence under his ill-fated measure on consumer protection, in which he sought salaries and administrative costs to be met by the Government and not by the industries to which they were then gazetted. I shall check on the matter. If the bodies feel that they are not as independent as they would wish, I accept the matter of principle that the hon. Member offers. If we have consumer councils, to be effective they must be seen to be totally independent of Government influence.
The grants for the three advice centres in Londonderry, Belfast and Newry—as with Great Britain—will be phased out. I understand that they will be closing on 31 March 1980. This is in accordance with the Department of Trade's policy in this matter. I understand that the centres in Belfast and Newry will be kept open by the district councils concerned. However, I am not able to give the information about the future of the centre in Londonderry. I shall gladly write to the hon. Gentleman if he will allow me to do so.
Mr. Pendry: Perhaps the Minister would answer my other point about money being allocated to citizens' advice bureaux.
Mr. Shaw: My understanding is that citizens' advice bureaux are not within the province of my Department. However, I shall ask for information to be made available to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that they come under the Department of Education in the Province. I shall write to him on the matter and seek to give him the information that he needs.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the disparity between the Republic and the North in relation to agricultural policy, the green pound, and so on. He asked why there were differences. The Province is part of the United Kingdom, which is a member of the Community. Therefore, inevitably, comparing the trading practices in agriculture which go on in the Province of Northern Ireland with those in the Republic—which is its own master in relation to agricultural policy—there are these disparities. There are many occasions when the agricultural community within the Province takes advantage of what it sees is available south of the border. Likewise, when the wheels turn the other way, it seeks to have the advantage from us.
There are checks and balances. The hon. Gentleman must not forget—as I suspect that he is most unlikely to forget—that there is this fundamental difference in the stature of the two authorities responsible for agriculture
I now turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on employment. This matter was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). There will be no let-up in the drive to get more employment into West Belfast. There is also a project now in a high state of preparation which will also come to West Belfast. There are other prospects which are further back in the queue but which together suggest to me that we shall by no means leave West Belfast out of consideration. I recognise the importance that hon. Gentlemen rightly attach to future employment. My concern—as I expect is their concern—is to ensure that the employment there is long-term and viable, contrary to much previous history

1237
Finally, on the mater of the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, rumour and counter-rumour are the language of what goes on in that shipyard. I cannot say to him that what he heard was either true or false. I do not like to deal in rumour-mongering in respect of that shipyard. We are determined to get more orders at that yard, but we shall be prevented from doing so by the extent to which the productivity achieved in the yard is found to be non-competitive. From my several discussions with the management and the unions, I believe that they are seized of the fact. It is by their efforts that we shall win.
11.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) advocated in his reference to Class VIII, Vote 2, a comparative study of costs of universities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I am sure that my noble Friend who carries the responsibility for the Department of Education in Northern Ireland would be equally interested in the results of such a survey, but the responsibility for looking into the comparative costs of universities in the United Kingdom as a whole is primarily a matter for the University Grants Committee.
The hon. Member also referred to a decline in the number of university entrants in Northern Ireland from semiskilled and unskilled families. The problem is not confined to Northern Ireland. A similar decline is widespread in British universities, particularly in Oxbridge. The cause of the decline is a matter of substantial controversy in the education world and is not one which I can profitably enter into at this hour of the night.
The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to the structure of teacher training. We recognise the importance and sensitivity of that issue when the number of teacher training places in Northern Ireland is declining. The higher education review group under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Chilver, the vice-chancellor of the Cranfield Institute of Technology, has been asked by my noble Friend to make a study of teacher training arrangements in Northern Ireland, and we hope to have its report within the next six months.
1238
I can tell the hon. Member for Down, North that I am advised that there are no sums in the Supplementary Estimates for the Ulster polytechnic.
11.48 pm
Mr. Rossi: I shall reply briefly in the three minutes left. The debate has been wide-ranging, though not as wide as some of us would have liked. That is a matter that we shall have to discuss on another occasion.
I take the major point of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) about the difficulty of eliciting from the order what the figures mean. I assure the House that we shall see whether it is possible to produce for circulation an additional document that may give a further breakdown of the details and form the basis of a brief for the debate.
I understand the concern about attendance allowances which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members. I give the absolute assurance that the rules in Northern Ireland are the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no differentiation in the rules or in their application. I have heard complaints in Britain, including some from my own constituents, that the rules are rigid and tightly drawn and that some people do not quite qualify. We have to accept that a dividing line must be drawn. If hon. Members know of instances of the rules not being applied properly or interpreted correctly, Ministers will inquire whether instructions can be given so that we achieve a satisfactory result.
Mr. Kilfedder: The rules have been interpreted strictly. The tradition in Northern Ireland is that relatives remain with the family. That is cheaper than putting them in homes.
Mr. Rossi: That is the point. I cannot do much about the rules because of the comparability. If our interpretation of the rules is different from that in Great Britain, that is our responsibility. We shall investigate instances which are brought to our attention.
Hon. Members have discussed the Assembly and its meaning. The estimate for the Assembly carries us to the end of the financial year. We are winding down the Assembly, but that does not preempt the outcome of the constitutional conference which I hope will take place

1239
successfully soon. I hope that all hon. Members will take part.
Questions put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MINERAL EXPLORATION)
11.51 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That the draft Mineral Exploration (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 November, be approved.
Considerable interest has been shown in Northern Ireland in mineral prospects by commercial operators over the past decade. With the passing of the Mineral Development Act in 1969, which vested all mineral rights in the Department, with a few minor exceptions, prospecting has been greatly facilitated and the complications which can be caused by the necessity to investigate the title to mineral rights in Great Britain have been avoided. A total of 53 prospecting licences have been granted since 1969. Seven are current at present and four applications are being investigated.
This order will enable the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce to pay grants to persons carrying out mineral exploration activities in Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the Mineral Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, the Department of Commerce has powers to issue licences for both exploration and development. The seven prospecting licences in existence, and to which I have referred, cover an area of 725 square miles. The companies concerned are searching for a wide range of minerals, including coal, copper and uranium.
Until March 1977, companies engaged in prospecting operations were eligible for grants under a capital grants scheme operated by the Department of Commerce. At that time the scope of this scheme was restricted to exclude non-manufacturing industries, in line with the decision taken on the corresponding investment grant scheme in Great Britain, and prospecting activities were no longer able to attract grant. The result of this change was that companies in Northern
1240
Ireland were placed at a disadvantage in relation to those in Great Britain, where grants have been payable for certain prospecting operations since 1972 under the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972.
The Government regard the encouragement of mineral exploration in Northern Ireland as potentially important to the development of the economy and consider that it is undesirable that persons carrying out exploration activities in Northern Ireland should be placed in a less advantageous position than those operating in Great Britain. At present salt is the only mineral which is exploited commercially in Northern Ireland, but I hope that the financial incentive which this order will provide will encourage further exploration and eventually lead to commercial development of other minerals.
The order is short and the kernel of it is contained in article 3. Article 3(1) gives the Departments power to pay grants to any person prospecting for minerals in Northern Ireland. Article 3(2) requires that grant will be paid only if the Department is satisfied that any necessary planning permission has been obtained. It is recognised that, while there are economic benefits in mineral development, there may also be environmental and amenity factors which have to be taken into account. Licences issued by the Department are in any case approved only after consultation with other Government Departments—including those dealing with agriculture and planning—and local authorities.
Prospecting operations rarely involve any form of disturbance and may often be limited to the collection of samples. Any consequential commercial development requires a further licence from the Department, which will be issued only after more detailed consultation.
Article 3(3) sets out a limit of grant of 35 per cent. and allows the Department to make conditions on any grant payable. To be eligible for this grant, a company must hold a prospecting licence from the Department of Commerce. The maximum rate of grant is the same as that laid down in the Great Britain Act and it is intended that the operative rate of grant will follow that applying in Great Britain and currently standing at 35 per cent. The paragraph also makes provision, as in the Great Britain legislation, for the

1241
repayment of grant. This is intended to cover a situation where commercial development results from the exploration activities. There will normally be no question of a person having to repay grant after an unsuccessful exploration programme.
Articles 3(4) and 3(5) authorise expenditure up to £1 million on the scheme initially and make provision for the Department to prepare an annual report on the operation of the order.
Perhaps I should comment on the definition of minerals in article 2. Only minerals as defined under the Mineral Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 for the purposes of prospecting licences will be eligible. These include such minerals as copper, aluminium, tin, zinc, lead, uranium, iron ore and coal. Those minerals which are "scheduled" in the 1969 Act, such as sand and gravel, which are in ample supply, are excluded. This definition corresponds broadly to that in the parallel Great Britain legislation. As in Great Britain, natural gas and oil are not included, as these are the subject of separate legislation.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Can the Minister give an assurance that the Irish Republic has no right to any part of the continental shelf around Northern Ireland and that this Government will resist any such claim?
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman, with a degree of clarity, has put a fundamental question. I think that I would be correct in saying that I should take advice before giving him the equally clear answer that he demands. I shall take that advice and give the hon. Gentleman an answer. My initial reaction is that in no way could that be done. But, with the alterations that go on in negotiations about which portion of the continental shelf shall be ascribed to which sovereign State, I must answer more correctly when I wind up this debate.
This order will bring the Province into line with the rest of the United Kingdom with respect to the encouragement of mineral development activity by means of grants. It will also provide the framework for what I hope could be a significant contribution to the development of the Northern Ireland economy. I commend it to the House.
11.59 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: This is an enabling order, which I believe the previous Government also prepared in draft, and I welcome it.
There are one or two points that I should like to put to the Minister. First, will he make sure that the grants are used with a proper sense of priority, and as a contribution to the economic future of Northern Ireland, rather than speculatively? Secondly, as I understand it, under the 1969 Act the lessee of property is able to pay a diminishing rent if the Department of Commerce, with the consent of the Department of Finance, recognises the value of the work that that person has done for the economy of Northern Ireland. I presume that, as grants have to be repaid for successful operations, that provision is unaffected by this order.
12 midnight.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to put two points to the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman explained that natural gas and oil do not come within the scope of the order because they are covered by other legislation. I wonder whether, when he is indicating what that other legislation is, he would deal with what may be a case which falls between the two stools. I understand that some exploration, which no doubt involves some of the same technical methods, is being directed towards ascertaining sources of terrestrial heat which can be tapped and used. It does not appear that that is in itself a mineral, though clearly that exploration involves all the techniques and so on of the search for minerals. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether and, if so, how that is covered. There seems to be a possibility—I have seen the possibility of it referred to in connection with the Mournes in my constituency—that that might in future be of economic importance to the Province.
My second point is a financial and, in a sense, a constitutional one, and it relates to article 3(4). In that article the order prescribes the £1 million maximum. It then goes on to say that that ceiling can be raised by the Department by order.
On the face of it, that appears to be an ability to alter, by order, a financial limitation fixed by substantive legislation. One notes, however, that it is an order

1243
made subject to "affirmative resolution". If those words were true, which they are not, there would be no objection at all. We are familiar with cases where the principal Act fixes a limit of capital expenditure, but that limit can from time to time be raised by an order which, however, must come before the House, because it is the House which controls expenditure and places limits upon capital expenditure.
I said just now that the statement in article 3(4) is not true, and the Minister will be aware that it is not true. I am not being unparliamentary in the proposition that I am putting to him. It is, of course, part of the mumbo-jumbo whereby we continue to legislate as if the Assembly, to which we were referring in connection with the appropriation order which the House has just passed, were in existence. Of course, if the Assembly were in existence—and we have the assurance of the Secretary of State that that Assembly, at any rate so far as he is concerned, will never again be in existence—there would be an affirmative resolution which would have to come before that Assembly.
But now we are in the position that in the House we are breaching—it may be in a minor matter, but it is still a breach—the constitutional principle of control of finance by specifying in the order, which is substantive legislation for Northern Ireland, a £1 million limit, knowing that that limit can be raised without the Government having to come back to the House.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to solve the conundrum in which we have landed ourselves by our insistence on a series of superimposed constitutional pretences. But I am sure that he would agree that it would be wrong for the House to be unaware of what it is doing: first, that there is no safeguard in reality, as there appears to be on the face of article 3(4), and, secondly, that we are, at any rate in present circumstances, fixing a financial limit which can then be departmentally altered without further intervention of the House.
If, having posed the problem, the Under-Secretary of State should challenge me to say how I think it should be dealt with, I offer him my answer. The order will place Northern Ireland, in respect of mineral exploration, on all fours with
1244
the rest of the kingdom under an existing Act of Parliament. My answer is that if we legislate for Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, which is what it is, by Act of Parliament, as we should, we should not find ourselves in the unconstitutional and contradictory position which is illustrated by article 3(4) of the order.
12.5 am
Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to put a couple of questions to the Minister about this order. One is in keeping with the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in regard to boring for minerals when something else is discovered. I wonder whether the Minister can give a full statement about what actually happened in Ahogill when boring took place and intense heat occurred. The matter was hastily covered over. I probed the Labour Government but did not receive much satisfaction. As the hon. Member representing that area, I should like to know the truth.
Many people believe that there could be coal, oil and perhaps gas off the coast of North Antrim. Will the Minister say whether any application to bore for coal off the coast has come before his Department? The hon. Gentleman has mentioned legislation concerning oil and gas. Are these applications inter-related? When will the exploration take place? As the Minister knows, there is great concern about the rundown of the gas industry. It would be terrible if natural gas was discovered off the coast but our gas industry had been destroyed.
The Minister should come clean and explain to the House whether investigation has taken place off the North Antrim coast where it is felt that discoveries to our advantage might be made.
The EEC announced a review of new energy sources for the whole of the Nine. It is carrying out a survey. Has the Department been approached about this matter and the grants that are available?
12.7 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister read out a list of minerals. I would like to add cobalt to that list. This is of great importance to British industry.
I put down a question on 3 December to the Secretary of State for Industry about the study he was making of the

1245
practicalities of mining cobalt in current economic circumstances in the Lake District and Scotland. I understand from Lord Energlyn, who is a geologist, that Northern Ireland may also be involved.
The Under-Secretary of State replied:
"The Department of Industry funds a comprehensive programme of minerals investigation designed to promote the economic development of our indigenous resources. This includes mapping and reconnaissance programmes carried out by the Institute of Geological Sciences—IGS—which aim to provide information on which minerals exploration by companies can be based; and the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972,"
the Act to which the Minister referred
"under which the Department is empowered to pay contributions of not more than 35 per cent towards expenditure incurred on searching for or discovering and testing certain mineral deposits—including cobalt—in Great Britain and on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf."—[Official Report 3 December 1979; Vol. 975 c. 4–5.]
I therefore ask the Minister whether any work is being done in relation to cobalt. I do not necessarily want an answer tonight, but perhaps the Minister, at his convenience, if he does not know the answer—there is no reason why he should know it—will send me a letter. It is a matter of some interest.
I have a second general question. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) and I, as Scots Members, know well the difficulty over the question of uranium mining in Orkney and possibly elsewhere in Scotland. What is the philosophy of the Northern Ireland Office towards uranium prospecting? There is every chance that uranium will be found in Northern Ireland. One would hope for a programme of education and warning to local communities to avoid the instant panic situation that has been so damaging, certainly in Orkney, and which has aroused opposition before the facts are known. We could possibly learn from the Northern Ireland Office in this respect.
12.9 am
Mr. Giles Shaw: This brief debate has certainly raised some questions of considerable substance, ranging from cobalt to the constitutional issue. I shall do my level best to deal with the matters raised.
First, I am not able to tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) whether cobalt is one of those minerals for which there is active investigation in
1246
Northern Ireland, but I shall write to him on the matter.
With regard to uranium—and perhaps I may include in the answer on this point a general observation—I think that it would be unwise of us if, in discussing this order, we felt that there was a fairly substantial likelihood of large quantities of precious minerals being found in commercially developable quantities near the surface of the Province's earth. A fairly substantial geological survey has been undertaken, as many hon. Members will know much better than I, and the geological map of Northern Ireland is well set out and well planned. As hon. Members will also know, in relation to much of it the basalt layer which covers the Province is of such depth and so widely spread that one has to go to considerable depths before one can reach the layers of interesting minerals beneath.
Having said that, I wish to make it clear that we regard the possibility as being of sufficient importance to ensure that there is nothing in the way of those who seek commercially to prospect for minerals. That is why we wished to bring this order before the House tonight, to bring matters into line with what is the policy in Great Britain.
On the specific questions raised, I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) about seeking an order of priority, but I suggest to him that, in the matter of mineral prospecting, almost by definition there is a speculative element. Frankly, I would very much regret having to pin down potential prospectors in Northern Ireland to a certain fixed set of minerals for which we gave licences, or, indeed, to fixed areas in which they should undertake exploration. I would far rather see as wide a franchise as possible being developed by those who seek to prospect—provided, of course, that they are correctly licensed. Here again, the order is directly relevant to that. I should like to feel that the hon. Member would not wish us to be restrictive in seeking to involve prospectors for minerals in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, in connection with the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) concerning thermal heat, I am aware that there is a substantial amount of thermal heat under the surface. In

1247
portions beneath Lough Neagh I believe that it is about 64 degrees, or something of a fairly reasonable level. I believe that the most important discovery so far has been in the Lame area, where geothermal waters were found some 7,000 feet below the surface at a very considerable heat.
As I understand it, geothermal heat is a by-product of our search for coal, and we have not actually been looking to geothermal heat as yet as a possible energy source. But the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North are quite right. Here is a possible resource the exploration and the assessment of which should be undertaken as a contribution to our reservoir of energy sources.
All that I can say is that in the two indications that we have had so far—one, I think, at Ahogill near Ballymena, and one near Larne—we are talking about depths of about 7,000 feet. This is really very complicated indeed. It is fairly difficult to believe that the gases extracted, albeit at 65 degrees centigrade, will be all that easy to turn to commercial purposes. But I take the point. We must encourage the development of thermal heat if it can possibly be found in commercial quantities.
The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a question which I suspect he is most adept at raising. As I suspect that I shall be the least able to answer him on the question of the constitutional issue raised, I must say to him that when I, as a newcomer to this scene, discover that the answer to the question "When is an affirmative order really a negative order?" is "In Northern Ireland", that seems to have a whole lot of logic attached to it. But the right hon. Gentleman knows full well the reasons for it. I can only say that I have a sympathetic and simple mind, and that it seems to me that this is a matter which should be tidied up, though I understand the reasons for it, as does the right hon. Gentleman. It is a residual problem in relation to the Assembly, to which so much of our legislation is geared. Perhaps he will make his contribution in that respect by helping to set up some other Assembly or constitutional development that might help to bring the legislation back into line. I am
1248
sure that he would not willingly wish to delay the development of legislation through the House when we might risk, for example, deferring the development of mineral deposits in South Down by having to make a protracted way through the legislative process.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not know whether the Minister took it in the first time, but I had already made my valid contribution to the problem by saying that we should legislate in the House for Northern Ireland as we legislate for the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no need to attend any conference to find that out.
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point in his inimitable way.
The question of explorations for gas was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Commerce has had no significant information about the likely availability of gas or oil deposits off the North Antrim coast. At least one test boring has been undertaken, but so far nothing has been discovered to lead me to give him any encouragement. I assure him that that area of exploration, which is of wider consequence than the order, is of considerable importance to the Province, to the Department of Energy, the United Kingdom, and to all Members. I trust that it will be pursued with vigour, but at present there has not been sufficient evidence to indicate that commercial quantities would be found.
Mr. Wm. Ross: Before we get down to drilling holes off the north coast of Antrim or Londonderry, we should bear in mind that there is a sedimentary base under Lough Foyle, and that the line between Northern Ireland and the Republic has not been clearly defined seaward of Lough Foyle. That matter ought to be cleared up now.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is right. We must be in a position to be precise on the extent of the territorial limit in that Lough, as we must be precise about the question raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) on the shelf around our coast. I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman verbally the categorical statement that he wishes, but I am utterly seized of the importance

1249
of being in a position to do so. I shall write to him, and to the hon. Member for Londonderry, to make as clear as I can the delineation of the borders where mineral exploration or boring can be undertaken.
The matters to which I have referred cover most of the questions raised. I finish on EEC grants. Grants are available to prospecting companies from the EEC to find new sources of primary raw minerals, including uranium. I am given to understand that one company has already been awarded a grant. Where possible, exploration will be funded by EEC grants where the companies qualify
I appreciate the welcome that the House has given the order. Everybody understands that development of minerals is a vital part of our search for new sources of wealth and, we hope, for developing a brighter economic future for the Province. I hope that the House will pass the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Mineral Exploration (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FOOD PREMISES)
12.20 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Control of Food Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 November, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to strengthen the control of hygiene in food premises. It will bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with legislation already in force in the rest of the United Kingdom. Comparable provisions are contained in the Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976 and the Control of Food Premises (Scotland) Act 1977.
Hygiene in food premises in Northern Ireland is controlled by regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958. Where a person has been convicted of an offence under the regulations, the Act empowers the court, on the application of a district council, to make an order disqualifying that person from using the premises for the purposes of a food business. A court order can, however, be circumvented by transferring the business to another person with the risk that premises may remain open until further proceedings are taken. The order will close this potential loophole. The order will also enable action to be taken quickly where there is an imminent risk of danger to health.
When a person has been convicted of an offence involving the carrying on of a food business at in sanitary premises where there is a risk of contamination, the order will empower the court, on the application of a district council, to prohibit by order the continued use of the premises as a food business if it is satisfied that there would be a danger to health. The closure order will specify the measures necessary to remedy the defects and will continue in force until the district council certifies that they have been carried out. The council will be required, not less than 14 days before the hearing of the application, to give written notice, both to the person accused of the offence and to the owner of the premises, of its intention to apply for a closure order. This must specify any measures

1251
that should be taken to remove the danger to health.
The court will also be empowered, again on the application of a district council, to make an emergency order for the closure of premises pending the outcome of a prosecution. Before it does this, it must be satisfied by evidence given by the council that the use of the premises as a food business involves a risk of danger to health; and it must also take into account any evidence given in defence. The council must, not less than three days before the hearing of the application, give written notice of its intention to apply for an emergency order both to the person accused of the offence and to the owner of the premises. Again this must specify the measures which should be taken to remove the risk of danger to health. The emergency order will continue in effect until the determination of proceedings relating to the offence or alternatively until the district council certifies that there is no longer any risk of danger to health, whichever is the sooner. The court will further be empowered to order a district council to pay compensation if, at the trial of the person accused of the offence, it is established to its satisfaction that at the date of the emergency order the use of the premises did not involve imminent risk of danger to health and that financial loss had resulted as a consequence.
Provision is made for appeals. An appeal may be made to the county court against the granting or refusal of either an application for a closure order or an application for compensation. In the case of premises subject to a closure order or an emergency order, an appeal may also be made to a magistrates' court against the refusal or failure of a district council to authorise the conduct of a food business.
12.24 am
Mr. Brynmor John: As the Minister has said, the order reproduces substantially a 1976 Act for England and Wales. Therefore, I welcome it on behalf of the Opposition. However, there are three differences. The difference concerning courts is understandable, but there are two puzzling differences between the Northern Ireland legislation that we now seek to enact and the earlier Act. Under the 1976 Act an emergency order
1252
was to be granted when the use of premises involves an imminent risk of danger to health. The order had to be affixed in a conspicuous place on the premises as well as being served on the owner or controller of the premises. That is not reproduced in the Northern Ireland order, and I wonder why not.
Secondly, by section 7 of the 1976 Act, there was an ability for the Act to be extended to ships. Again, there is no comparable provision in the Northern Ireland order, and I wonder why not.
12.26 am
Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome the order which is designed to close the loophole in the existing legislation—that is, the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958–whereby a disqualification order had to be applied to a caterer and not to the premises where the business was carried out. Any court order could be circumvented by transferring the business to another person. Apart from the welcome news that the order brings us into line with other parts of the United Kingdom, can the Minister tell us whether there is any particular aspect in Northern Ireland at the present that has made this necessary?
From soundings on the ground, it appears that this is a particularly common practice among certain oriental gentlemen who are at present opening a number of restaurants throughout the Province. When the local council comes along to serve the disqualification order, it finds that the person who had previously owned the property has become the cook, dishwasher, waiter or perhaps even the fellow who operates the stomach pump. Anyway, the business has transferred to someone else and, therefore, the procedure takes probably six weeks before it can take effect.
The order enables the court to exercise two important controls. First, the court may make a closure order where the person operating the business has been convicted of an offence under the Food-Hygiene (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1964. In this instance, the local authority must have given a person at least 14 days written notice of its intention to apply. The second control is where there is imminent risk of danger to health. The court may grant an emergency closure order pending the outcome of the prosecu-

1253
tion under the regulations. Those will obviously strengthen the hands of local authorities, and that will be welcomed by Members from Northern Ireland, particularly those who are also members of local authorities in the Province.
I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that there are some differences in this legislation, which we are told is to bring us into line with legislation on the mainland. The equivalent legislation on the mainland requires that, where an emergency order has been imposed by the court, the local authority shall affix a copy of the order
"in a conspicuous position on the premises or, if practicable, on the stall",
which I notice is included in this order as well. No such requirement is proposed in the draft, and I suggest that, since that would provide a further public protection measure and a deterrent to the possible illegal operation of a business that is the subject of an emergency order, a similar clause should be inserted in the Northern Ireland order. Perhaps the Minister can also indicate why that is not so, particularly as the order is supposed to bring us into line with legislation on the mainland.
Exemptions are included in article 8 of the order in respect of premises in which
"there is a licence in force under—

(a) the Milk Acts (Northern Ireland) 1950 and 1963…or

(b) the Slaughter-houses Act (Northern Ireland) 1953."

It is fairly obvious that those two matters are dealt with in other legislation. But, as they are included in legislation on the mainland, can the Minister tell us why it was not thought approriate to include them in this order? Can he tell us which legislation takes care of those matters? What are the penalties? Are they felt to be better penalties than those outlined in the order?
The order is to be supported, but I should like to have answers to my questions so that I can give it more enthusiastic support.
12.30 am
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It would be wrong of me to detain the House by rehearsing some of the points that have already been made in the course of the debate and which
1254
have occurred to my colleagues and I. We welcome the order. Any order which effects parity with existing law in the rest of the United Kingdom is welcomed by us.
However, I have one question to add to those that have been posed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). If food placed in a store is found to be contaminated and that store is separated from the premises on which the food is sold or cooked, does the closure relate to the store only, or will it relate to the store and the main premises where sales take place? That possible loophole may well be covered in the order but it has been known for food to be stored in the most deplorable conditions and for that food to be moved and sold, or cooked and sold.
Apart from that query, I shall not add anything more at this early hour of the morning. We welcome the order.
12.32 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have two questions to address to the Minister. In relation to articles 4 and 5–4, the emergency order and 5, compensation in cases where an emergency order is made—when we read about the difficulty of making an emergency order, we find that the court must be satisfied:
"that the use of the premises for the purposes of a food business involves an imminent risk of danger to health".
Being so satisfied, the court makes the order. Article 5 states that compensation can be ordered if the court determines:
"that at the date of any emergency order the use of the premises did not involve imminent risk of danger to health".
The point of time is identical. Compensation can be ordered only when the court comes to the conclusion that it should not have been satisfied, as it was satisfied.
It is not stated in article 4 that there is a prima facie case. Article 4 states that before an emergency order can be made the court must be satisfied that:
"the use of the premises…involves an imminent risk of danger to health".
It is difficult to suppose that the same court—in many instances the same court would be the appropriate one—can turn round and say that it was wrong and that the premises were perfectly safe on the day on which it was satisfied that it

1255
should make an order. There appears to be some difficulty on the face of the matter. There may be a choice of courts and it might be possible to play one court against another. There seems to be a contradiction or collision between the two provisions.
My second query relates to the exemptions, or, as they are more attractively called, "savings", in article 8. It was originally intended to exempt not only premises licensed under the Milk Acts and the Slaughter-houses Act, but also premises registered by district councils. That was the provision in the proposal for this draft order and was so set out in the explanatory note that accompanied it. Could we be told a little more about this? For what purposes are the premises registered under section 17 of the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, and why do the Government on second thoughts think that premises so registered ought not to be exempt from the scope of that Act? We would welcome some indication of how it could come about that a district council had licensed premises but that the premises nevertheless ought to be open to the procedures of the order.
12.35 am
Mr. James Molyneaux: At this late hour I want to make two brief points. It has been my experience that the pattern of inspection and enforcement varies greatly between one district council and another. I know of one example where the inspector recommended—"demanded"might be a better term—certain changes and alterations. He indicated that he would be back within a period of, say, 28 days to inspect the modifications, and when he returned he suggested an entirely different set of modifications and alterations. On one occasion he criticised modifications made on his specific instructions. Such action is not likely to help someone operating a fairly small business and certainly reflects no credit on any of us who are responsible for government.
Secondly, I wish to deal with the position of mobile and catering units and stalls, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I have in mind, for example, mass catering at such markets as the one that we have on the approaches to Aldergrove airport. Some dubious activities are car-
1256
ried on there, despite frequent closure and enforcement orders on the entire site, to which the proprietors and traders simply turn a blind eye.
We would support a tightening up of the regulations in the interests of public health, but I impress on the Minister of State that there is great scope for improvement in regard to these mobile units.
12.37 am
Mr. Alison: I shall try to reply to most, if not all, of the specific and searching queries and comments, and perhaps I can continue in the order in which the topics were raised, although two or three hon. Members may have dealt with the same topic.
The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised the question of the non-recurrence in this order of the notice to be affixed to premises, which was a feature of the England and Wales regulations. The 1977 Scottish regulations, likewise, do not have an affixing provision. It was not found in the case of the England and Wales regulations, which were laid first, that it was a particularly useful feature. It necessitated recurrent inspection to see that the notice continued to be affixed. It sometimes came unstuck. It meant an extra-bureaucratic involvement of personnel to keep on checking that the notice was still there. In the Scottish regulations it was felt that it was not worth continuing that provision, and, the Scots having shown that they can get by quite well without it, we felt that the omission was proper in the case of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: During the time when the Minister asked for recommendations from various interested groups, did he have any representation pressing for the section to be included?
Mr. Alison: None that I know of that was of such compelling argumentative validity as to lead us to decide to depart once again from the pattern that was found to be suitable for Scotland.
Mr. John: I cannot accept the Minister's reason for the weakness. There may have been no real need for it to be in the legislation—that is different—but there is no requirement in the Act that the

1257
inspector should see that the notice continues to remain affixed. He just has to affix it on one occasion. There is no need for it to continue to be displayed as, for example, a town and country planning notice has to be seen to be displayed for a certain length of time.
Mr. Alison: I think that the purpose, significance and necessity of the fixing is to advertise the fact to members of the public. But where a notice has proved not to be very durable—as has apparently been the experience in England and Wales—it has been felt to be not very useful to extend the practice when the later versions of the regulations, as it were, came to he passed in different parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
I understand that the only powers enabling authorised officers or district councils to enter ships is that contained in the Imported Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) made under the Food and Drugs Act 1955. These regulations only enable the authorised officer to get a magistrate to have the unsound food destroyed. The extension relating to ships is not felt to be part of the kind of regulation and protection that we are seeking to make in the narrow point about premises. The visitation to ships, in other words, is simply designed to get the food destroyed. Here we are concerned primarily with the protection of the public from premises which may be contaminated. There is, therefore, no real sense in which it would be useful to extend the regulation to ships in the pattern precedented under the regulations that I have quoted in this context.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked whether we had evidence of any special incidence in Northern Ireland of the circumventing of the existing regulations by the switching of ownership, responsibility, and so on. He referred delicately to some of the newcomers to the Province who might be particularly adept at this habit. There have been newcomers to other parts of the United Kingdom and the circumventing of the regulations is quite a generalised United Kingdom phenomenon. I am not aware of any special incidence in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the possibility exists. That is why it is desirable to make certain that we block up that loophole.
1258
The hon. Member also asked about slaughterhouses. I believe that the reason why we have not extended it to slaughterhouses, and have the article 8saving, is that the provisions for slaughterhouses, which are made by regulations under separate Acts, are adapted to the special conditions and circumstances of the specialised food preparation premises. They are felt to be fully and perfectly adequate for those circumstances and for those particular premises. It is better to legislate for two quite different sets of circumstances in different ways.
The hygiene standards for slaughterhouses are contained in regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, and the hygiene standards prescribed in the Slaughter-house Hygiene Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1963, made under the Act, are generally in line with corresponding regulations in Great Britain and are felt to be perfectly adequate and perfectly effective in the task that they are trying to perform.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) wondered whether there was a loophole, probably in article 3 and in the interpretation clause, article 2, concerning a food store which might be located close to, but not necessarily physically part of, the premises in which the food was retailed or prepared. I am not a lawyer and I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about this if I am wrong, but the interpretation clause says that:
"'premises' includes any stall, vehicle or place to which food hygiene regulations apply".
There is no reason, in principle, why the regulations should not extend to storage facilities adjacent to if not actually contiguous to, or part of, wider premises. The order which a local authority can seek from the court can be applied to any locality to which the food regulations apply. I shall consider the point the hon. Gentleman has made and let him know whether he has highlighted a loophole with which we should have to deal.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised two points. I would prefer to look at the first in cold print and write to him. I think I am right in saying that the anomaly might arise in circumstances when a person has

1259
suffered financial loss as a result of an emergency closure order. If such a person can satisfy the court that the order should not have been made, he may be awarded compensation against the district council. This circumstance could possibly occur because of the urgent manner in which an article 4 order would be dealt with, on the grounds that the continued use of the premises involved an imminent danger to health. There would then arise the question of the short time given to the accused person and the owner of the premises to provide rebutting evidence. This should prove a rare occurrence and the compensation provisions will place a constraint on district councils. It may be that the operation of the pressure of time in an emergency will result in something being done which should not have been done.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I quite see that the court could have less evidence at the time when it decided to make the order than when the application is received from the interested person under article 5. My main anxiety is that article 4 is so drawn, not as to be a satisfaction on the information then available to it, or prima facie, but a satisfaction—full stop. If so, the court is invited to contradict or criticise itself to pay compensation to a person genuinely injured.
Mr. Alison: I would like to consider that point and write to the right hon. Gentleman when I have pondered the implication of it.
1260
The second point made by the right hon. Gentleman is answered by the fact that article 8(a) of the proposal for a draft order excluded from the provisions of the order any premises licensed under the Milk Acts (Northern Ireland) 1950 and 1963. This meant that any retail food businesses which, in addition to selling other foodstuffs, were licensed for the sale of milk would have been excluded. These premises are not now excluded from the provisions of the order except in so far as their use for the licensed sale of milk is concerned.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made a serious allegation about the way in which the officers of the district council can, on occasions, revise the requirements they make. I should like to weigh carefully what he told the House about that. It is obviously unsatisfactory. I am not sure that we can deal with it, strictly speaking, under the terms of the regulations here provided. We shall look into the matter. If I find anything that I can usefully add in the context of what he said about the protection that we can give to interested parties, I shall drop him a line.
On that basis, I hope that the House will allow the order to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Control of Food Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PERJURY)
12.54 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 21 November, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to consolidate the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 and the enactments amending it.
The order is one of strict consolidation in that it reproduces the existing law without any change of substance.
I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 21 November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE)
12.55 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.
Hon. Members will have observed that the provisions in the regulations are substantially the same as in those regulations applying to England and Wales and to Scotland, which, I understand, are to be considered by the House later this week.
In essence, the regulations have two basic purposes. First, they amend the existing regulations so as to remove the requirement that the names of Service voters and merchant seamen should be marked on the register respectively with the letters "S" and "M". The original purpose of such markings was to indicate to party canvassers that such electors would not be voting in person. But party canvassers are now seldom interested in these markings.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, there has been concern for some time among Service men and their families about the ease with which they can be identified by the marking. There has been a quite understandable fear that the register could be used as one means of locating the whereabouts of Service men or their families by terrorist groups. Whether that fear is justified is not at issue here, although I assure hon. Members that there is no evidence to suggest that terrorists have used the register as a way of helping them to pursue their nefarious ends. But clearly fears that Service men may be putting themselves, and especially their families at risk, discourage electoral registration. It seems entirely right to do away with the practice—hence the regulations.
The second effect of the proposed regulations is to increase the fee chargeable to certain purchasers of the register. We do not propose to change the rate at which those entitled to free copies of the register are able to purchase extra copies. That will remain at a rate of 10p per 1,000 names or part of 1,000 names. However, it is proposed to increase the fee

1263
for copies of the register to persons who do not qualify for free or discounted copies—for example, mail order firms and market research organisations—from 50p to £1 for 1,000 names.
The rise is partly to compensate for inflation since the fee was last fixed in January 1978, but the Government do not see why the public sector should be asked to subsidise the private sector in such a way. Production costs have risen sharply in the intervening period. It seems quite reasonable to ask commercial concerns to pay a realistic fee for access to a register which is produced primarily for electoral and not commercial purposes.
In conclusion, I would say that all interested bodies—including the political parties in Northern Ireland—have been consulted about the regulations. I think that it is fair to say that there is general agreement that they make modest, but sensible, improvements in the electoral law of Northern Ireland, as they will in due course in England, Scotland and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 4 July relating to the nomination of the Committee of Public Accounts be amended by leaving out Mr. Arthur Palmer and inserting Mr. Robert Maclennan.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

CIVIL SERVICE (DISPERSAL)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
1.1 am
Mr. Frank McElhone: I am thankful for the opportunity of debating the important subject of Civil Service dispersal to Glasgow. When a previous Mr. Speaker granted me a debate on this subject on 18 April 1973, the Minister responsible
1264
for the Civil Service stated that it was the first debate on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. Sadly, that means little since 13 years will elapse between then and when the jobs go to Glasgow in 1986. That is disgraceful by any standards and is the main reason why I raise the matter tonight.
It is right that I should place on record my personal tribute to the many people in the west of Scotland from the local authorities, the Churches and the trade union movement and others who have campaigned vigorously in support of the dispersal programme. The campaign has been led ably by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, Mr. David Hodge, and the Convener of Strathclyde region, Mr. Charles O'Halloran.
There is growing resentment and anger at the way that the Tory Government are treating Scotland. The substantial cut in Civil Service jobs, the savage cuts in public expenditure and the decision to delay the dispersal of jobs to Glasgow until 1986 is not without significance, coming from a Tory Government, which, according to the election results, have no real political base in Scotland.
The Government have only to examine the male unemployment figures for October this year to understand the gravity of the situation. The figures are appalling. In the central office of employment area, male unemployment is 26·7 per cent.; in the Easter house area, 21 per cent.; in the Ruther glen area, 26·8 per cent.; and in the Govan and Springburn offices,12·5 per cent.; and 13·7 per cent. respectively. Those figures are even more appalling when compared with the 4·4 per cent. male unemployment in the south-east of England.
I trust that the Government will not look on the figures solely as statistics. They represent human misery and suffering. They make one think of the Jarrow and Clydeside marches period. This Government must understand that the people of west-central Scotland will not stand by and watch while large parts of their country are condemned to dereliction, decline and decay. Therefore, the Government have a duty to act in a bold and decisive manner by giving the kiss of life to this area and by declaring that the promised 1,400 jobs will arrive much earlier than 1986.

1265
I take no pleasure in saying that in the city at present there is a growing catalogue of despair because of the closure of such companies as Prestcold, Singer and Goodyear, together with the redundancies in the shipbuilding and steel industries. There is also the announcement by Sir Charles Villiers in today's press that 50,000 jobs will be lost in the British Steel Corporation. That will affect Scotland substantially, as well as the rest of this country. These redundancies and closures are creating a crisis of confidence about job prospects in the city that can be alleviated only by urgent Government action.
I now put some questions to the Minister which I hope that he will be able to answer tonight. He will be aware that I have asked several parliamentary questions on this subject over the years. Will he confirm, first, that the answer that I received to a question on 20 July 1979, which said that Glasgow was one of four areas in the country still to receive Civil Service jobs under the dispersal programme, is still accurate?
The Secretary of State for Scotland was quoted in the Scottish press on 29 November 1979 as saying that he promised to examine with his ministerial colleagues the feasibility of an earlier move to temporary accommodation. Will the Minister give that same promise at the Dispatch Box tonight? Is he aware that the local authorities have assured me that suitable office accommodation will be made available until the St. Enoch site is ready?
Will the Minister also give an assurance that a forward planning unit will be set up as early as possible to assure the people of Glasgow of the Government's good intentions about the 1,400 jobs? If the Minister has been properly briefed, he will be aware that the Ministry of Defence was on target to send 1,500 jobs to Glasgow by 1983–84. That figure is referred to in column 1008 of Hansard of 20 July 1978. Therefore, it should not be a problem to meet that number of posts, especially when the Labour Government were planning to send more than 5,000 posts to Glasgow.
There is deep concern among local authorities that they have committed themselves to substantial expenditure in preparing the sites in Glasgow. Having
1266
heard the dismal and depressing news about the cutbacks, we may be asking questions about compensation. Is the Minister able to tell us whether any claims have been made by the local authorities at this stage for compensation for lost expectations? What agreement, if any, has been reached so far?
The Minister knows, perhaps better than anyone in the House this evening, that he, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues, campaigned strongly before, during and after the general election for the full implementation of the dispersal programme. Is it not politically dishonest, therefore, for him meekly to accept the Government's savage cutbacks in the programme as applied to Scotland? What is more galling is that, according to press reports, the Minister is claiming credit for the topping out of the East Kilbride building to which the Overseas Development Adminstration is to go, when the credit should go to the Labour Government.
The good will of the Civil Service is essential to any dispersal programme—indeed, it is essential to the efficient working of the Government. That good will will surely be strained to the limits by the substantial cuts in the Civil Service that were announced last week. Indeed, the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, stated in the House on 6 November 1979–somewhat proudly, to my dismay—that the Government had reversed the major expansion of jobs that was begun under the Labour Government.
Nevertheless, because of the special circumstances of the city of Glasgow, which were always recognised by the Labour Government, I look to the Minister to indicate that this Government, even after eight months of inflicting misery and hardship on the citizens of that great city, might have a special conscience and that dispersal to Glasgow will be delivered at an early date. To do otherwise would only confirm my opinion that, as far as the problems of Scotland are concerned, this Government are already frozen in the ice of their own indifference.
1.10 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for initiating this

1267
short debate. I am very much aware of his strong feeling over many years now on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs, and I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's commitment to dispersal and to explain what we are doing to implement our commitment.
We made it clear before the general election—the hon. Gentleman referred to remarks made by my hon. Friend and me before the election—that we proposed to review the overall programme of dispersal for the Civil Service, and we set in train that review when we came into office. Our conclusions were announced in the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department on 26 July 1979. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there was no delay in coming to the point on that matter.
As hon. Members are aware, the previous Labour Government's plans for the dispersal of MOD posts, which were announced on 4 April this year, included the relocation in Glasgow of about 4,000 posts from a large number of provincial locations. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that this package was entirely contrary to the Hardman principles that posts should be relocated from central London. We decided to take a different course, and our package involves the relocation of more MOD posts from London to Glasgow—1,400 in all—than had previously been envisaged.
I should like to make it clear that our progress on our planned dispersal of Ministry of Defence posts to Glasgow is on target and that, despite recent suggestions in the press and elsewhere to the contrary, our commitment to dispersal and our determination to carry it through are undiminished. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland emphasised this when he met a group of local authority and other representatives in Glasgow on 7 December to discuss this subject.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether local authorities had made claims for compensation because of the delay with the programme. The answer is "No". But I suggest to any local authority that may put the point to me that, if it wishes to seek a recipient for its claim, it should lodge such claim with the Labour Party because, during the period 1974 to 1979
1268
the Labour Government talked a lot about dispersal but made no dispersals to Glasgow during that time. The hon. Gentleman should take that into account in his criticisms of anything that has happened since the election
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army announced to the House on 27 November that he envisaged 1986 as the likely date on present plans when dispersal posts in his Department would occupy office accommodation in Glasgow, there was an immediate fuss from the Opposition. But, as I have already indicated, in view of their record on dispersal, I find their attitude ironical.
As my hon. Friend made clear, dispersal cannot happen overnight. We settled our strategy in July, and since then we have been preparing detailed plans. The first step, as my hon. Friend indicated, is to select the Ministry of Defence posts to be dispersed. We hope to be able to make final decisions on that matter by the end of the year. So, again, I suggest that there has been no undue delay on that important decision.
I would also say that this is not a simple matter. It is not merely a question of switching from London to Glasgow Ministry of Defence jobs formerly destined for elsewhere. The complex effects of our requirements on the organisational structure of the MOD need to be considered carefully. It is noteworthy that the identification of the Ministry of Defence package over these few months will be a great improvement on the performance of the previous Administration, which took from July 1977 to April 1979 to announce the full package for Glasgow.
We should also bear in mind that Hardman did not recommend the dispersal of any Ministry of Defence jobs to Glasgow. I must dispel the illusion in certain quarters that there are large areas of Ministry of Defence work that can be instantly taken up from London and placed in Glasgow at short notice. The MOD headquarters is already widely dispersed to Bath, Harrogate, Liverpool and Worcester. As Hardman pointed out, dispersal from London is not a recent development, and the Ministry of Defence has, over the years, moved from London large areas of work that could be devolved down the line to establishments throughout the United Kingdom.

1269
In Scotland, for example, there are some 20,000 Service personnel and 22,000 civilians employed in a wide range of important defence establishments. I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence that it is the deliberate policy of the Ministry of Defence to look to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom facing economic difficulties when seeking locations for future new developments.
Mr. Harry Ewing: To which Under-Secretary was the Minister referring—the Navy, the Army or the Air Force? If it was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, the Minister has made an important statement. Can we assume that there will be no cutback as a result of the recent visit by the Under-Secretary of State to Rosyth dockyard?
Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that on a question such as this my hon. Friend will be speaking as Minister at the MOD. I believe that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army who made the statement in the House on the last occasion to which I was referring.
I should like to refer to the question of timing. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the detailed planning of accommodation requirements of posts to be dispersed must take some time if the job is to be carried out properly. This will commence as soon as the package of posts has been identified. I have already given the commitment that the identification should be made before the end of this year.
The building to house dispersed civil servants will be one of the most significant Government office building projects in Scotland in recent years. It will be about the same size as New St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, and will form a key element in the major redevelopment of a crucial site in the centre of Glasgow. We think that this is also important. Any office building of this size would be a considerable undertaking. It is particularly desirable that this scheme should be planned and designed to a quality matching the importance of its location. Glasgow, after all, will have to live with the results for a long time.
1270
There is also need for a building that accommodates its occupants efficiently and in accordance with their needs and provides a good working environment. All this creates complex problems for the planners.
Mr. McElhone Mr. McElhone rose—
Mr. Fletcher: I would like to make a point about the completion date of 1986. This represents the Property Services Agency's present best estimate. The timetable is not over-generous. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grange-mouth (Mr. Ewing) is amused. He should know that the PSA has a regular job to carry out and has experience of meeting requirements of this kind. Nevertheless, I can assure hon. Members that we shall be seeking to improve on that date and making sure that there is no avoidable delay.
Mr. McElhone: This point was raised at the meeting between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Glasgow local authorities. That is why I anticipated the Minister's next point. I understand that the Secretary of State told the local authorities that the PSA was talking in terms of three years for planning and three years for building. That is not the local authority view. A senior Conservative councillor who is a professional in the building trades has said that this is grossly exaggerated and that the PSA or any private contractor could complete the planning in 18 months and the building in two years. That is terribly important. Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was the view expressed at the meeting?
Mr. Fletcher: I was not at the meeting, but I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Our view of the matter is that, whereas the PSA has given us the best estimate, we shall be seeking to improve on that and making representations to the PSA and others involved to see whether this process cannot be speeded up.
I turn to the question of speedier arrangements generally, and not just the time it will take to prepare the building. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he will be pursuing with colleagues the feasibility of an earlier move to temporary accommodation, as has my hon.

1271
Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department. There are, of course, difficulties in this, for example, temporary adaptation of accommodation is costly; and it might be difficult to find leases for the short time involved. But we are giving full and serious consideration to the scope for such an operation to permit the earlier move of posts. We are not being hidebound by the proposals made by the PSA. We are seeking other means of speeding up the relocation of these posts.
Mr. McElhone: I am sorry to press the Minister a second time in this short debate, but he will understand the grave anxiety in the city of Glasgow regarding the possibility of this development not coming to Glasgow at all because of the savage Civil Service cuts announced last week. As an indication of his intentions, will he say that a formal planning unit will be sent to the city—it would be welcomed by the local authority—comprising a senior civil servant and perhaps a very small staff? May I have that assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight? That would be an earnest of the Government's good intentions and it would really raise the morale of the people of Glasgow.
Mr. Fletcher: It is rather dangerous to exaggerate the hon. Gentleman's last point. Obviously, the planning for this building, facility and transfer must take place in Glasgow. The size of the unit involved in that is something which I am not able to confirm at this stage. I do not think that anyone can tell at this stage just how, where and when that unit will be located. But clearly a planning team will be necessary for this project. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should hoist a big flag outside the unit's door to improve the morale of the citizens of Glasgow, certainly I personally have no objection to that—that it should be seen to be doing the job and not just sitting quietly in an office in the city doing this planning.
On the question of showing signs on the ground that the proposal is under way, the recruiting schedule for the posts to be filled will be determined obviously, in the first instance, by the progress on accommodation, but we shall start recruiting for these posts as soon as it is practicable to do so. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence
1272
for the Army has already indicated, there may well be an advance move of certain posts concerned with publicity, recruitment, staff training and other matters some two or three years in advance of the main move. That goes some way towards meeting the point about signs of activity on the ground which the hon. Gentleman was making.
Some people have suggested that recruitment should start now, with recruits from Glasgow working in London until the move north. Experience of previous dispersals has shown that staff in non-mobile grades—essentially, the clerical grades—are reluctant to uproot themselves to London, but staff are recruited nationally for the grade of executive officer and above and their wish to work in units to be dispersed to Glasgow will be taken into account by the Civil Service Commission, whose practice is to advertise national competitions in the receiving locations.
This debate is about Glasgow. None the less, the progress being made at East Kilbride represents a tangible demonstration of the present Government's commitment to carry through their dispersal plans. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department indicated to the House on 5 December, it is still our firm intention to begin to move posts from the Overseas Development Administration to East Kilbride next year. I suggest that this, again, is further evidence of the Government's commitment to carry out their dispersal programme to Glasgow as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
In making these points to the hon. Gentleman, may I express the hope that he will reconsider his opening remarks, which were extremely pessimistic and uncalled for, not only because of the Government's commitment to dispersal to Glasgow but because of the action which the Government have taken in six or seven months. In carrying out the action that I have recounted and in making the moves that I have described, our record is far better than that which the Labour Government achieved in four or five years in office from 1974.
Mr. Harry Ewing: That is a lot of rubbish.
Mr. Fletcher: It is not a lot of rubbish. It is a matter of moving people and carrying out our commitment to move

1273
people. If we can achieve that much in seven months, it indicates—
Mr. Ewing Mr. Ewing rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I shall allow the odd interjection, but not a running commentary. May we have a little silence while the Minister finishes his speech?
Mr. Fletcher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I reiterate the Government's firm commitment to dispersal and their intention to complete the package for Glasgow as soon as it is practicable.
I have taken note of the arguments and I hope that the hon. Member for Queen's Park is satisfied with the replies. I recog-
1274
nise the need to speed the dispersal to St. Enoch, and, while some difficulties exist in the short term, I am sure that we can complete a project with which the people of Glasgow will be happy and proud to be involved.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels more assured of the result having instigated the debate at this rather late hour. For my part, I intend to ensure that the progress we have made so far is fully maintained in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.

  NUCLEAR SECURITY
  NUCLEAR SECURITY
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  TUC
  TUC
  STAFFORDSHIRE
  STAFFORDSHIRE
  SPEKE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
  SPEKE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
  INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
  INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  CARRICKMORE, NORTHERN IRELAND
  CARRICKMORE, NORTHERN IRELAND
  COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS (MOBILITY OF LABOUR)
  COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS (MOBILITY OF LABOUR)
  GIRVAN
  GIRVAN
  POLARIS MISSILES
  POLARIS MISSILES
  HEATING AND THERMAL INSULATION
  HEATING AND THERMAL INSULATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (AUTONOMY)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (AUTONOMY)
  NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD
  NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Cleaning and Restoration
  Cleaning and Restoration
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
INDUSTRY
  Postal Service
  Postal Service
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Capital Goods
  Capital Goods
  Corby and Shotton
  Corby and Shotton
  Meccano Limited (Liverpool)
  Meccano Limited (Liverpool)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Residential Care Orders
  Residential Care Orders
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Suspected Persons (Statistics)
  Suspected Persons (Statistics)
  Open Prisons
  Open Prisons
  MAGISTRATES
  MAGISTRATES
DEFENCE
  Male Nurses
  Male Nurses
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  Fuel Debts
  Fuel Debts
  Oil Sales (Policy)
  Oil Sales (Policy)
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Production)
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Production)
  Oil Consumption
  Oil Consumption
SCOTLAND
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Commission (Audit)
  Commission (Audit)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Earnings)
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Earnings)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  European Community Social Fund
  European Community Social Fund
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Sheltered Employment
  Sheltered Employment
  Private Schools (Careers Advice)
  Private Schools (Careers Advice)
  Magistrates (Recruitment)
  Magistrates (Recruitment)
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
TRADE
  Oil Spills
  Oil Spills
  Civil Aviation (Subsidies)
  Civil Aviation (Subsidies)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Product Liability
  Product Liability
  Car Imports
  Car Imports
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
TRANSPORT
  British Railways
  British Railways
  North Devon Link Road
  North Devon Link Road
  Transport Costs (Manchester)
  Transport Costs (Manchester)
  Driving Tests (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Driving Tests (Stoke-on-Trent)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Apostolic Delegate
  Apostolic Delegate
  St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
  St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
ENVIRONMENT
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  Local Authorities (Public Relations Department)
  Local Authorities (Public Relations Department)
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Unrebated Rents
  Unrebated Rents
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  British Railways (Land)
  British Railways (Land)
  Roads (Maintenance Costs)
  Roads (Maintenance Costs)
  Orchard Street, Cambridge (Inquiry)
  Orchard Street, Cambridge (Inquiry)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Society Interest
  Building Society Interest
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Departmental Answers
  Departmental Answers
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Personal Output and Taxation
  Personal Output and Taxation
  Company Aircraft
  Company Aircraft
  Motability
  Motability
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Double Taxation (Norway)
  Double Taxation (Norway)
  Devolution (Public Expenditure)
  Devolution (Public Expenditure)
  Bank and Public Holidays
  Bank and Public Holidays
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Civil List
  Civil List
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Imports
  Imports
  Oil Taxation
  Oil Taxation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ambulance Drivers
  Ambulance Drivers
  Nursing Services (Ealing)
  Nursing Services (Ealing)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  Social Services (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Elderly Persons (Privately-run Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Privately-run Homes)
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Maternity Services (Slough)
  Maternity Services (Slough)
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Dental and Optical Charges
  Flexible Retirement Dates
  Flexible Retirement Dates
  Home Help Services
  Home Help Services
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Homes (Insulation)
  Homes (Insulation)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hospitals (Industrial Disputes)
  Hospitals (Industrial Disputes)
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Prince of Wales Hospital
  Prince of Wales Hospital
  Contributory Social Security Grants
  Contributory Social Security Grants
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Trade Unions (Non-Strike Agreement)
  Trade Unions (Non-Strike Agreement)
  Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Hoden Family (Committee of Inquiry)
  Hoden Family (Committee of Inquiry)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Fostering Scheme (Kent)
  Fostering Scheme (Kent)
  Drug Interferon
  Drug Interferon
  Waltham Abbey War Memorial Hospital
  Waltham Abbey War Memorial Hospital
  Health and Social Security Office, Blackpool
  Health and Social Security Office, Blackpool
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  Disabled Persons (Taxi Vouchers)
  Disabled Persons (Taxi Vouchers)
  Benefits (Sex Equality)
  Benefits (Sex Equality)
  National Health Service Consultants
  National Health Service Consultants
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Vaccine Damage
  Vaccine Damage
  Blood Transfusion (Manchester)
  Blood Transfusion (Manchester)
  Invalid Tricycles
  Invalid Tricycles
  War Pensioners
  War Pensioners
  Children (Computerised Medical Records)
  Children (Computerised Medical Records)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Communicable Diseases
  Communicable Diseases
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Disabled Workers (Earnings Disregard)
  Disabled Workers (Earnings Disregard)
  Welfare Milk
  Welfare Milk
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Special Educational Needs (Warnock Report)
  Special Educational Needs (Warnock Report)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Voucher System
  Voucher System
  Numeracy
  Numeracy
  Schools (Heating and Lighting Costs)
  Schools (Heating and Lighting Costs)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Pupils (Early Release)
  Pupils (Early Release)
  Research
  Research
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Iranian Students
  Iranian Students
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Rising-fives
  Rising-fives
  Social Research
  Social Research
  School Building (Nottinghamshire)
  School Building (Nottinghamshire)
  Secondary Schools (Kirklees)
  Secondary Schools (Kirklees)
  Further Education Establishments
  Further Education Establishments
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  Certificate of Extended Education
  Certificate of Extended Education
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Maysfield Leisure Centre, Belfast
  Maysfield Leisure Centre, Belfast
  Security
  Security
  Compensation (Prison Officers)
  Compensation (Prison Officers)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Information Legislation
  Official Information Legislation
  Pensions
  Pensions

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
The Lord Broadbridge—Took the Oath.

BRITISH INTERESTS OUTSIDE NATO AREA
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the global nature of the Russian threat, what steps they are taking to ensure the safety of British interests outside the NATO area.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have frequently expressed concern about the external policies and actions of the Soviet Union. The Russians seek to exploit instability in the developing world. It is therefore important that we and friendly countries should continue to try to settle regional problems and to promote stability outside the NATO area.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Bearing in mind the massive build-up of the Warsaw Pact countries which may perhaps encourage the Russians, or the Soviet Union, to expand in the South and the East, would my noble friend consider that it might be worth negotiating with South Africa to reopen the naval base at Simonstown? Secondly, would he consider it perhaps pertinent to get together with some of our Western allies to help China with modern defence equipment?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we are of course already discussing with the Chinese the possibility of supplying them with some defence equipment. As for the suggestion
958
that we should reopen the base at Simonstown, that is a matter that we should clearly have to discuss with our NATO partners.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the global strategic policy now being pursued by the Soviet Union, it is any longer possible to define a specific NATO area, and whether there is any British interest in the world which is not dependent on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the NATO Treaty does not in fact include any precise definition of the NATO area, but we understand it as meaning the countries of the NATO Alliance including, of course, North America, together with the Mediterranean and the Atlantic as far South as the Tropic of Cancer.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, is it not increasingly clear that the point is being reached where the arms race, especially in the nuclear field, is not going to resolve the differences between the NATO countries and the Warsaw Pact countries? Is it not therefore necessary to effect a radical reappraisal of our approach to both the Soviet Union and its allies in relation to the whole range of problems throughout the world, including those the Minister has mentioned; the need for stability, which is an equal interest and concern for East and West, and the need to tackle jointly, East and West together, the points of contention and of difficulty, economic and security, that arise in so many parts of the world?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, we certainly agree with that. Of course both East and West are participating in the mutual balanced force reduction talks, as they are called—MBFR—at Vienna. It is a matter for great regret that those talks are not making more progress than they are.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister give the House an assurance that, when Her Majesty's Government decide to take action involving the movement of equipment, they have the capacity to carry it out, bearing in mind that last week when it was announced that we wanted to send Pumas, of which we have

959
some 40—they are battle transport helicopters—to Rhodesia it was found that we had not the means of conveying them and had to borrow a Starlift, a C141, to carry them out? This is an exact parallel of what happened at Suez, and other dubious occasions when the Conservative Government were responsible for defence.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid that my memory does not go back as far as that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I certainly agree that we ought to maintain and, so far as we can, improve our transport facilities within the availability of our resources.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that it is not so many years ago since the Tory Party were engaged in supporting the American view that Taiwan had to be fully armed to deal with China? Now that we have established apparently friendly relations with that great country of China, with its need for expansion, might we not reflect that the continual use in this House of Russia, the Soviet Union, as an essential potential enemy rather overlooks the fact that the USSR has made considerable progress in its foreign alliances, has an expanded connection, but does itself face grave internal problems? Might we not consider not stimulating hostility against that country which, with all its lack of democracy, in which it has never believed, has a contribution to make to the reduction of armaments and to the promotion of a general understanding? Finally, may I suggest—
Several noble Lords: No! Order!
Lord HALE: Finally, my Lords, would the Minister consider the remarks on the BBC last night made by Lord Carver on our present military policy and its complete impracticability?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is of course entitled to his views, but we have to formulate our policies in accordance with circumstances as we find them, not as we would wish them to be.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the USSR today is training terrorists from all over the world and
960
that the PLO and its affiliates are actually being trained in the USSR for terrorist and murderous actions? Will he try to do something about this menace, a menace not only to Israel and other countries but to NATO and throughout its European section?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, answering Questions, as I do from the noble Lord so often, I could hardly fail to be aware of the matters he raises.

POLICE INFORMATION ABOUT WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
2.44 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if the police discover that an innocent person has been wrongly convicted, it is their duty to inform the innocent person, or his or her legal advisers, or the Home Office, or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or one or more and which of them, of what they have discovered.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, there is no statutory duty on the police to pass on information where there is a possibility that a person may have been wrongly convicted. Clearly, however, the interests of justice require that the police, or any other agency to whom it comes to notice, should draw attention to such a possibility at the earliest opportunity. The police are fully aware of this obligation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will however consider, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, whether any specific guidance is necessary.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware, from the first of the examples of this that I gave him, that the innocence of the woman who was convicted of theft and sentenced to two years imprisonment transpired only because the barrister who appeared for her happened to be in the same chambers as the barrister who later

961
appeared for the real culprit, who by that time had confessed that she was the real culprit? Ought there not to be some sensible system, so far as the Ministry can achieve one, for seeing that the police carry out the advice which the noble Lord has given?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, there was indeed a curious chain of circumstances here, but it must be borne in mind that the fact that a person admits to an offence for which someone else was convicted does not in itself imply a wrongful conviction. Both may have been involved in the same offence and the second person may merely be seeking to exonerate an associate. The police will normally have to reopen their investigation into the offence and the circumstances of the original conviction before they are satisfied there may have been a wrongful conviction.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the real difficulty, perhaps, is not the fact that outside the metropolis the Secretary of State has no power to direct the police as to what they are to do in such circumstances? In view of that difficulty, would not the Secretary of State at least consider remitting this problem to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure within whose wide terms of reference the subject clearly falls?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is very well informed and will know, of course, that the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is sitting at the moment. I shall of course draw my right honourable friend's attention to his suggestion, but whether it will be specifically relevant to the matters they are undertaking at the moment I cannot confirm to him.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, surely the Minister should go further than that. Is he aware that it is human to err, that the courts are human and that they err quite often? Should it not be our duty—the Government's duty—to take urgent steps when they feel there is not a certainty but a possibility that they have erred, that they have inflicted an injustice, instead of looking into every technicality? The noble Lord should go home and read the Dreyfus
962
case where this happened in its largest degree.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord raises matters which are really more properly raised in your Lordships' House in the form of an Unstarred Question, and I am sure the Government would welcome an opportunity for him to do so.

GATWICK—SECOND TERMINAL: PUBLIC INQUIRY
2.48 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they decided to hold a public inquiry into the proposal to construct a second terminal at Gatwick.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government considered that the proposal to construct a second terminal at Gatwick Airport was of sufficient importance, regionally and nationally, for the matter to be determined jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade, rather than being dealt with by the appropriate local planning authority. The planning application was therefore called in, and a public inquiry was arranged so that all the difficult issues involved should be fully investigated and open to public scrutiny.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that some months ago the Government published a White Paper a major feature of which was the policy decision to develop Gatwick Airport up to a level capable of handling 25 million passengers a year? On the basis of that policy, is not at least a second terminal inevitably required and, on that basis, is not therefore a public inquiry a waste of time and public money and really no more than a work creation scheme for the planning Bar?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords, I would not accept that a public inquiry which allows all interested bodies to

963
make their views known, including those specifically and perhaps personally affected, should not be held.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can my noble friend envisage carrying out the declared policy of the Government, which they are already pursuing by ordering foreign airlines to move to Gatwick, other than by deciding, after all this inquiry is over, that a second terminal has to be built?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Government are presently involved in a major consideration of airport policy in the South-East, and the question of a second terminal at Gatwick is of course part of that consideration. I should not want to prejudge the outcome of that consideration.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, with regard to the Minister's original reply, can he help the House on a related matter? Can he tell us whether the British Airports Authority were acting within their powers, or were within their rights, in agreeing with the West Sussex County Council that there should be no second runway built at Gatwick; or was that decision not for them to take?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the agreement to which the noble Baroness refers was, as she rightly says, entered into by the British Airports Authority, and as I told the House the other week, the Government were not a party to that agreement and are certainly not bound by it. As for the point about the British Airports Authority, there is, I am afraid, more than one view as to whether the British Airports Authority were entitled to enter into that agreement. The matter could only finally be decided if it came before the courts.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if this had not been a public inquiry, people who live in the vicinity would have been most horrified and rather distressed if all the evidence had not been brought out?—because there are people who live near airports who feel as strongly about these matters as do people who merely travel in aeroplanes.
Lord TREFGARNE: I think that my noble friend is quite right, my Lords.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the delays in reaching any decisions about terminals at Heathrow or Gatwick, or about another London airport, go on indefinitely, they will do infinite damage to this country? Can he not do something to expedite a decision on something, sometime?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I agree that democracy is sometimes rather tiresome, but that does not mean that we should throw it out of the window.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that problems of Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, Maplin and the other airports have been debated at enormous length for years by the people and the Governments concerned, and that no new facts on any of them could conceivably come out?
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend may well be right, my Lords.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the suggestion of my other noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that a declaration of policy by a Government—any Government—has some sacred quality which forbids it to be overturned by public acclamation or resistance?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if my noble friend is suggesting that that was suggested by my other noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, then I do not think that I would agree with him.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, if a second runway were built at Gatwick airport, would it then be necessary to proceed with the construction of a third airport in the Midlands?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that if I were to comment upon that, I should be pre-empting the Statement which is to be made in due course on airport policy in the South-East generally.

SELLINDGE, KENT: ELECTRICAL CONVERTER STATION
Lord ALDINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, during a public inquiry held to consider the location of a proposed converter station for the electricity link with France, it was announced that they had given approval for the construction of that station at Sellindge in Kent; whether such approval has been given; and whether they are aware of the effect of such a statement, at such a time, on public confidence in the public inquiry system.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, during the inquiry an unpublished document containing an inaccurate statement alleging Government approval for a converter station at Sellindge was given in evidence. Government approval in principle was given in August 1978 for an electricity link with France. This approval, however, related to the project in general and not to any particular construction on any particular site. I am assured by the originators of the document quoted that the error will be corrected before publication.
Lord ALDINGTON: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he can please reassure us that the Government are aware, and will communicate their awareness to public authorities, of the damage to public confidence if statements such as this are made during an inquiry? The inquiry has necessarily cost the local residents quite a lot of money, and they have already seen signs—for example, roads have been altered and road and bridge plans have been altered—suggesting that that particular statement was right and that the Government have approved the location at Sellindge.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the tendency to leak things and then to bring the leaks forward in evidence is damaging to the whole procedure of sensible planning decisions.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the Government not agree that, wherever the converter station is located, nevertheless an electricity link with France will be of great benefit to our two countries?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I would rather take that view, but of course we have made a decision only about this in principle. The details about costs, investment decisions, or what liaison with France herself would be involved have not yet been arrived at.

RHODESIA
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at approximately 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a Statement on Rhodesia.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE
2.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, following the Statement in another place on Friday, the House will know that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has been appointed Governor of Rhodesia. I know that my noble friend Lord Soames very much regretted that he was unable to announce to the House personally his appointment to the post of Governor of Rhodesia during the interim period up to the elections. He hopes that the House will extend its indulgence to him and will understand that the delicacy of the final negotiations concerning the ceasefire made it impossible for him to announce his appointment while the House was sitting. I am sure that I would be expressing the feelings of your Lordships from every part of the House if I were to say that we wish him every success in what can only be a difficult and formidable task. Our best wishes go with him.
My Lords, as a consequence of his departure, it falls to me as Deputy Leader to act as Leader during my noble friend's absence, in a state, as it were, of loco parentis. It is for this reason that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees has tabled a Motion to add my name to those Committees of the

967
House of which the Leader is a member. If I might say so, I hope that your Lordships will be kind enough to extend your indulgence to me, too, as I temporarily slip into my noble friend's shoes as far as the House is concerned. I hope that on the occasions when I may inadvertently act in error, your Lordships will not hesitate—and I have no doubt that you will not—to inform me of any such indiscretion.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful for the Statement of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the Leader of the House. I am sure that the whole House will certainly wish to send good wishes and say "Godspeed" to the noble Lord, Lord Soames. He faces a great challenge, and we all hope that he will achieve success. May I say to the new acting Leader that he need have no inhibitions. I believe that he has all the qualities necessary for a Leader of the House: tact, calmness, and, most of all, a love of agriculture.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to say that we believe that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, as Governor of Rhodesia is a very good one indeed. It is a challenge appropriate to the noble Lord's experience and competence, and we wish him well in carrying out his new responsibilities. Of course the new acting Leader of the House will have full support when he is right, and a certain amount of sympathy when he is wrong, in carrying out his duties. However, may I ask him this. Since, as I understand it, a considerable number of parliamentary business decisions are taken in the Cabinet, will the noble Earl join that body during the temporary absence of the noble Lord, Lord Soames? I think that it would be for the better arrangement of the business of the House if the noble Earl were in the Cabinet during this period.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the two noble Lords for those kind words. I am bound to say that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is a fairly quick one to pose to a person in a new position, and all I can tell him is that whoever is a member of the Cabinet is a question for the Prime Minister, not for me.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will expedite that request of mine to the direct channels lower down in this Parliament?
Earl FERRERS: I think that it would be presumptuous for me to do so, my Lords, but I have no doubt that others will take the noble Lord's views on board.

POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [H.L.]
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for a Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom in place of the Police Council for the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES, PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE AND SELECTION COMMITTEES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl Ferrers be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices, the Select Committee on Procedure of the House and the Committee of Selection.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.1 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE rose to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The report read as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
In the light of decisions taken by the House of Commons with respect to Committees, the Committee have considered again the recommendations contained in the First Report of the

969
Select Committee on Practice and Procedure relating to Select Committees on Public Bills (H.L. (1976–77) 141) and, in particular, the proposal to appoint one such Committee experimentally. They have also considered a proposal that the House should appoint a Select Committee on Science and Technology to take the place of the Committee on that subject formerly appointed by the House of Commons.
The Committee have taken fully into account the decisions of the House of Commons in regard to Select Committees. They are also conscious of the need to make the best use of limited resources both of manpower and accommodation. The proposal to establish a Select Committee on Science and Technology has attracted widespread support both within the House and outside. The House has a great deal of expertise on science and technology and a Select Committee on this subject would fill the gap created by the decision of the House of Commons not to reappoint their Committee. In the opinion of the Committee these considerations outweigh the arguments adduced by the Practice and Procedure Committee in favour of appointing a Select Committee on Public Bills.
The Committee, therefore, recommend the creation, as soon as practicable, of a sessional Select Committee on Science and Technology with powers to appoint sub-committees and to co-opt further Lords to serve on the sub-committees. They recommend that these powers should be granted only to allow the Committee to function as flexibly as possible within their orders of reference. In view of the constraints on manpower and accommodation referred to above, the Committee propose that a single clerk should be assigned to staff this new Select Committee and any sub-committees which they may wish to appoint.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I had hoped that this might receive your Lordships' approval in the same unanimous way as the first Motion, but, as the Order Paper shows, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is moving an amendment, and I therefore think that it might be of some help if I were to outline the history of this matter as briefly as I can.
It starts from the appointment of a Select Committee on Practice and Procedure of which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was the very able chairman. That committee put forward some interesting proposals for a new committee structure in their first report, dated the 26th April 1977. In very broad terms the proposal was that we should appoint sessional committees matching policy areas to scrutinise Bills and other proposals in the relevant area of each committee. That proposal was debated in this House on 5th July 1977, and on that occasion it was the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham,
970
who had a Motion on the Order Paper seeking the appointment of one or more of these committees in the following Session. He did not in fact press his Motion because he received certain assurances from the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, which satisfied him that some progress was likely to be made in the direction that the committee had indicated.
The next thing that happened was that on 28th July 1977 the Procedure Committee discussed the situation and set up a sub-committee of its own members to consider how an experiment could be carried out in this direction. The subcommittee reported on 22nd February 1978, putting forward proposals for the setting up of one such experimental committee to look at Public Bills in this House. Their report was considered, again by the Procedure Committee, on 26th July 1978, and at that point the Procedure Committee took the view that it would not be sensible to make any final decision until it was known what action was going to he taken in another place as a result of the recommendations of their Committee on Practice and Procedure. I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that as soon as that matter was resolved I would refer the matter back to our own Procedure Committee. That I did, and it is the report of that meeting of the Procedure Committee, on the 20th November last, that is now before the House.
At that meeting the committee had before it, first of all, the proposals that I have already mentioned from their own sub-committee for setting up an experimental committee. Secondly, they knew by then the decisions which had been made down the corridor, and what the committee structure was to be in another place. Thirdly, they had before them a new proposal which had come in the meantime as a result of a letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, proposing the appointment of a Select Committee on Science and Technology. That proposal had a very great deal of support, both from Members of your Lordships' House who wrote to me and from other, outside bodies. It was thought to be particularly appropriate, perhaps, because one of the results of the decisions made in another place was that their Committee

971
on Science and Technology, which had done outstanding work, had now disappeared.
The committee also took into account the very limited resources that are available in this House for appointing additional committees. We are very short of committee rooms; we have a limited establishment of clerks; and many of your Lordships are already very heavily committed. In the light of all those factors the decision taken by the committee, which appears in the Paper before your Lordships this afternoon, was to recommend to the House that a Select Committee on Science and Technology should he set up in preference to the experimental Committee on Public Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.6 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out ("agreed to") and insert ("referred back to the Select Committee for their further consideration"). I hope I shall be able to tempt the acting Leader of the House, despite the short notice he has had of this matter, to intervene, because I think the reply can best come from him in view of the events which I shall hope to relate this afternoon.
My Lords, I move this amendment because an undertaking was given to the full House, and was accepted by the House in good faith, no less than two and a half years ago, and this undertaking shows no signs of being honoured; and because the Procedure Committee, despite what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has said, shows little sign—no clear sign, at any rate—that in this lengthy period of two and a half years it has been doing the limited task (as I shall indicate it is) which the House in effect asked it to undertake in fulfilment of the undertaking given to the whole House. Since it is such a long time ago that this unhappy story starts, and despite the fact that the noble Lord has mentioned it briefly, I must myself give my own description in order to refresh the memories
972
of your Lordships of the promise of the Leader of the House on 5th July 1977. In effect, in my view, the House reached a decision on that day, and it is still not carried out.
The Select Committee on Practice and Procedure reported in April 1977. Part 3 of that report dealt with these fresh ideas about the consideration of Public Bills. It suggested that several committees based on policy areas, as the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, has recalled—things like trade and industry, environment and home affairs are examples which come to mind—be set up to deal with legislation only. I emphasise that point: they should not be confused with Select Committees dealing with policy and administration. Those are a very different kind of animal, and form no part at all of the Practice and Procedure Committee's proposal in 1977. The suggested legislative committees, as they were, would watch Bills, pre-legislative Green and White Papers and delegated legislation, very much as the European Committee does in another sphere, and would be free to take some outside evidence where appropriate. Before a Second Reading, these committees would report on the features of the Bill and also on areas of it that had perhaps had little scrutiny in the House of Commons, on undertakings given in the Commons about further amendments to be introduced in the House of Lords, and so on. Thus the committee would help to focus noble Lords' attention in the full House on the areas most suitable for revision and deeper study.
After the Second Reading in the House, the same committee would take the Committee stage of appropriate Bills—I shall come to what was meant by "appropriate Bills" in a moment—and would be able to take more evidence if it wished. For this work at a formal Committee stage, as a Standing Committee, the committee would of course be enlarged; Members and Ministers would be added, and in any case, of course, all Members can attend such committees and move amendments.
As the Practice and Procedure Committee clearly indicated, and as was firmly understood when the report was debated in the House, such a system would not be suitable for very controversial Bills which

973
would remain on the Floor of the House for all stages. There would be nothing automatic about the proposed legislative committees. Equally the suggested committees would not necessarily deal with all possible amendments. On the pattern of what we are learning all the time in the European Communities Committee, it would reserve difficult amendments for the full House to take at Report stage. That was the proposal of the Practice and Procedure Committee.
I was a member of that Practice and Procedure Committee and took some interest in these proposals. In my view, if I may humbly say so, after nearly 30 years in Parliament, many of them concerned with procedural matters, there can be little harm and perhaps a lot of good in some limited experiment to see whether the House could perform better the function which it now claims to fulfil. Following its reduction in powers and its search for influence instead, the House claims to be a revising Chamber. But most Public Bill procedure here dates from the time when the House was equal in powers and authority with the House of Commons; and most of the Public Bill procedure remains a mirror image of the adversarial confrontation system practised by the House of Commons. The European Committees indeed commented to the Practice and Procedure Committee that the House did not seem to be learning the lesson of their successful break-out from the old system.
Without detaining your Lordships for too long, may I take one small example that might have had the new procedure: the Race Relations Bill of 1975–76. Its non-political and technical qualities would have made it, I firmly believe, a most interesting candidate for particular care with revision. Clause 25 about discrimination in clubs and associations cried out for dispassionate study, possibly with witnesses. Clause 65, a very important clause, was deleted, if noble Lords will look in Hansard, after one political speech from the Front Opposition Bench, one in reply and a simple party vote. I do not call that revision. I do not believe that that is a proper fulfilment of the revising role which this House clearly claims to undertake nowadays. The element of proving intent in cases about incitement to racial hatred that was dealt
974
with in the Bill would have benefited from relaxed study and help by witnesses. There are half a dozen, at least, of such issues where the House failed, in my view, to perform the function of careful revision.
I come finally to 5th July 1977, when the Practice and Procedure Committee's recommendations—which were, by the way, unanimous—were debated by the House. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who unhappily cannot be here today, moved a Motion for one or more such legislation committees in the following Session. Although several noble Lords were suspicious and some confused the proposals with those for the investigatory type of committee, there was considerable support for an experiment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, from the Front Opposition Bench said quite clearly (in col. 179):
"I, for one, certainly approve of an experiment on the lines that my noble friend Lord Windlesham is suggesting".
In col. 180 he said:
"I should be in favour of a single experiment in a policy area".
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, now Government Chief Whip, gave his blessing to the proposals; the noble Lord, Lord Byers, took a similar line and so did the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, from the Cross-Benches. After a full debate, again with reservations, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, then my noble friend Lord Peart, said (in col. 261):
"… I echo the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, in saying that I am prepared to accept the proposal for an experiment…";
and, most important, that the proposal should go to the sessional Procedure Committee for the detailed technical implementation to be worked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, withdrew his Motion with the words that he was
"willing to rest on the good faith of the Leader of the House".
Lord Windlesham must be reflecting ruefully that he might have done better to press his Motion which was set fair to win that day after that debate. It would certainly have been carried, and there would have been no further possibility of doubt or of unnecessary delay in starting the experiment.

975
I come, then, to the present report from the Procedure Committee that we are discussing today. For two and a half years it has failed to report on the technical implementation of the experiment effectively endorsed in principle by the full House on 5th July 1977. Rumour has it that the Procedure Committee debates the principle of what was decided rather than the implementation and rather than its technical details—completely to the contrary of what was understood when the matter was debated. There was, first, the excuse that at the time they were waiting for the new Commons committee system. On that I would make two comments. First, as in the European Communities Committee system, this House has not shirked going ahead with its own system, quite different from and in advance of that of the House of Commons, when it suited the House. We do not always wait for the House of Commons. We gave a lead in the European Communities system. Secondly, the Commons committee system is now established for all to see. So why are we still waiting for the Procedure Committee?
The present excuse which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has made might look rather suspicious in the light of the history that I have recorded. It is the excuse that we are short of clerks; we have clerks for only one experiment; and the claims of the Select Committee on Science and Technology come first. I have one major comment to make on this. Do we really want to go on delaying an important experiment that goes to the heart of our role as a revising Chamber because we need one more clerk? We have 19 clerks, most of whom are engaged on committee work. We do not begrudge any number of clerks to the European Communities Committee; but when a matter goes to the heart of our role as a revising Chamber we are arguing and delaying over one more clerk—although the work of the European Communities Committee, of course, is peripheral to our main activity in this Chamber while the Public Bills Committee system goes to the very heart of our role. We are liberal with one and we begrudge the other. This, in my view, is quite misplaced. As far as the proposal of my noble friend Lord Shackleton is concerned, the Science and Technology
976
Committee, of course, is important; but it is different in nature and we should make room for both if this Chamber and this House need these activities to take place.
So, my Lords, I move my amendment. Two and a half years, I think, is long enough. The Procedure Committee should be requested in all courtesy to report on the technical implementation of the agreement on the experiment agreed in 1977. The House should decide on any amendment to the principle if staff demands are thereby intolerable. With great respect to the Front Benches, issues of good faith are at stake and those of us who toiled on the Policy and Procedure Committee and accepted the July 1977 undertakings are beginning to feel betrayed. Indeed, I hope that the outcome of today's discussion might well be that the Procedure Committee will withdraw its Motion of today, enabling me also to withdraw my amendment, and will volunteer—as has been expected of it, if I may say so—without unreasonable delay, to report further on the technical implementation of the agreement reached on 5th July 1977. My Lords, I beg to move my amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out ("agreed to") and insert ("referred back to the Select Committee for their further consideration").—(Lord Northfield.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether I am depriving the acting Leader of the House of his first opportunity to speak in that capacity; but perhaps I may make a few comments which could be of help. I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Northfield. As someone who is also familiar with procedure in both Houses of Parliament, I believe that my noble friend is incorrect in assuming that the Leader of the day gave a binding commitment. He could not have given such a binding commitment, because in the last resort it would have been for the House to decide. Nor could he bind the House in regard to the following Session. Even if the Motion had been carried—and I admit that undoubtedly I would have supported it—it would still have

977
been left for the Committee on Procedure and subsequently for the House to take decisions.
As a member of the Practice and Procedure Committee, I feel rather sorry that my proposal to the Committee on Procedure should have had this effect. However, I am bound to make the following comments: first, it was a deliberate decision that the Practice and Procedure Committee's recommendations would be considered in the light of a decision in another place. The analogy with the European Committees is not a valid one because they were both seeking to go their separate ways. We decided to wait. As a result, we were confronted with a situation of a decision by another place to set up department committees and to abolish their subject committees. It is not for us to comment on the wisdom of their decision, but I am bound to draw the attention of the House to the very considerable criticism which arose both in scientific and indeed other circles, in the Press and elsewhere, at a time like this that Parliament should be left without a specialist committee which would cross the whole broad issue of science and technology.
It was in these circumstances that we considered the matter in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is a past president and I am the current president. It was on the initiative of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee some years ago—and nearly 100 Members of your Lordships' House are Members of that committee—that the original Select Committee was set up in another place. Many of us were dismayed when this decision was taken. The reason that we were dismayed was that whereas I, for one, would not wish to suggest that the department committees are not valuable, there are certain subjects which are very much broader than any single department.
May I give your Lordships two examples. First, there was an excellent report by the Select Committee on Japanese research and development. This crossed many subjects which would not have been appropriate for a department committee. Another example: a recent but not wholly finished report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place deals with the very delicate question of recombinant DNA. Your Lord-
978
ships will be aware that this strikes at the very roots of life and raises profound issues. At least six departments could be involved in this matter. It could be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, which should be concerned with research. It could be the responsibility of the Department of Industry because of its impact in industry. It certainly could involve agriculture; it could involve the Department of Employment; and it could involve other departments.
This is a broad subject which is not appropriate for a single department committee. The case for a Select Committee on Science and Technology was a very strong one. My noble friend has not seen fit to challenge that. I accept that he is in favour of this. However, we were concerned with urgency. We were also aware that your Lordships' House is uniquely qualified, in a way that no other parliamentary chamber in the world is so qualified, to deal with this particular issue. Not only do we have 13 Fellows of the Royal Society, but we have countless technologists, scientists and engineers. All my predecessors as presidents of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee supported this—Lord Zuckerman and others. For that reason, we felt that the matter was so urgent that we pressed for an immediate setting up of this committee. We therefore found ourselves with something of a difficult choice. We were advised that it was not going to be possible to set up two committees, for various reasons. Therefore I hope that your Lordships, however sympathetic you may be to my noble friend Lord Northfield, will not reject the original proposal. This is a battle which may need to be fought again.
I should remind your Lordships that the House still retains powers to appoint Select Committees to consider particular Bills. It has done so: I remember that it was on my Motion that a Select Committee was set up to consider a Bill concerned with equal pay. Your Lordships took evidence and did a very good job on it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. He will have the sympathy of the House. He will certainly be hesitant about any assurances that he may feel he is to be given. My Lords, I hope that we will pass the original Motion.

RHODESIA
3.28 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt your Lordships' debate for one moment to make a Statement about Rhodesia. A similar Statement is being made in another place.
We are approaching the conclusion of the Lancaster House conference. Last week agreement was reached on our proposals for a cease-fire. The final details are still being discussed. Earlier this afternoon I made in the conference a new presentation of our detailed proposals for the implementation of the cease-fire. We have given assurances about the security of the Patriotic Front forces and that the monitoring force will be adequate to monitor the Rhodesian forces, through their command structure down to company level. We have explained that the Patriotic Front forces will be sited in their operational areas in locations which will meet their concern that they should not be in close proximity to Rhodesian bases. We have therefore been able to provide the Patriotic Front with the assurances they have been seeking about their security and the disposition of the Rhodesian forces.
It is important to see the present stage in the perspective of what has already been accomplished. The issue of majority rule, which has been the fundamental cause of the conflict in Rhodesia for 14 years, has been resolved by the independence constitution. It has been agreed that there should be fresh elections to resolve the question of who should exercise political power. The parties have accepted that a British Governor should exercise legislative and executive authority to supervise the elections and bring Rhodesia back to legality. There is agreement on our proposals for a cease-fire. In the light of what has been agreed, it would be indefensible to continue the war. Ideally, we would have preferred the final details to be agreed before beginning to put the settlement into effect on the ground. But it is essential to maintain the momentum if we are to achieve a settlement involving all the parties, and if what we have achieved so far is not to be eroded by events outside the conference.
980
I believe that the proposals we have put forward this afternoon should lead to early and complete agreement. My right honourable and noble friend Lord Soames will therefore leave later this afternoon for Rhodesia. Delay could risk prejudicing what has been achieved at the conference. The Governor's arrival will help to stabilise the situation and normalise relations with neighbouring countries.
A British authority in Salisbury is necessary to make the final arrangements for bringing the cease-fire into effect. Legality will be restored and sanctions will be lifted with Lord Soames' arrival and the acceptance of his authority. The Governor will set in train the arrangements for elections. The Government are determined to carry out their responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence at the earliest possible opportunity.
3.31 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the noble Lord's Statement, which can only be described as "momentous". The Government clearly have made a crucial decision and they are aware—are they not?—that the decision involves the new Governor arriving in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia before important details of the cease-fire have been agreed. Are the Government aware that we are bound to express our deepest misgivings about this procedure? We have tried to be helpful in all our comments on the long-drawn-out and very difficult negotiations which the Foreign Secretary has conducted with great skill and perseverance; but we have said consistently from this side of the House and in another place that until there is a final and durable cease-fire it would be a very great gamble indeed to send a Governor out to that country.
May I put one or two points for clarification of this Statement to the Foreign Secretary. First, the Statement says:
"Legality will be restored and sanctions will be lifted with Lord Soames' arrival and"—
I stress this—
"the acceptance of his authority".
Does that mean that his arrival will not in fact mean that these steps will be taken and that they turn upon the acceptance in that country of his authority? This is not by any means a debating point. One

981
can envisage that a Governor could arrive there with full powers but little power and, in the event, declaring legality and the lifting of sanctions without his authority being accepted. What happens then, particularly in the bush?
The second point I should like to put is this: I welcome the statement in the last paragraph but two that—
"The Governor's arrival will help to stabilise the situation"—
we very much hope so—
"and normalise relations with neighbouring countries".
This is an essential aspect for the situation in both Rhodesia and Central and Southern Africa. We are in full support of the intentions of the Government in seeking to restore working relationships of a constructive character with neighbouring countries in that part of Africa. I would ask whether this most definitely includes the South African Republic, without whose full co-operation and restraint in the next few days and weeks no lasting solution can hopefully be achieved.
Finally, may I join with my noble friend who so appropriately expressed his good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and to Lady Soames in their momentous and perilous mission and to wish them well, to wish them success and safety. I should like also to add a personal note of felicitation and good wishes to the Deputy Leader, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who now assumes full governorship of this House.
3.35 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we, too, would like, first of all, to express our good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and to Lady Soames on their departure for this very difficult mission. I am sure also that we can all agree that it is a very remarkable achievement on the part of the Foreign Secretary and his very able team of advisers to have got almost to the point at which there is a final agreement on a cease-fire—which in itself would represent a successful end to the long-drawn-out negotiations that a few months ago few of us thought would have a happy ending. It seems that the Foreign Secretary has practically no doubt that what he calls the final details of the cease-fire will be agreed tomorrow or at the latest the day after; and we must all hope that his optimism will be justified.
982
The only point I would myself venture to query, along with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is the decision to send out the noble Lord, Lord Soames, before the cease-fire has actually been signed and delivered. I note what is said in the Statement about the necessity for maintaining momentum, but, my Lords, would much momentum really be lost if the noble Lord, Lord Soames, were to go out, for instance, tomorrow or the next day when it is confidently expected that the cease-fire will be in the bag? Or is it thought—perhaps the Foreign Secretary will tell us—that his departure will somehow speed up the signature of the cease-fire by the Patriotic Front here at Lancaster House?
In any case, we note—and this is a similar point to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—that sanctions may be, or indeed are to be, lifted as soon as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, lands at Salisbury Airport. However, it seems that they will also only be lifted once there is acceptance of his authority. But if on the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, the Patriotic Front have not by any chance finally signed the ceasefire, how will the Governor be able in practice to exercise his authority? I feel there is an important point of principle here which surely should be cleared up.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the first thing I should like to do is to thank both noble Lords for what they have said about my noble friend Lord Soames. I can think of nobody more capable of doing this job or more reassuring in the way that he will do it. All of us will wish him well. I also understand the point of view put forward by both the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I should, of course, be misleading the House if I said that for my noble friend to go out at this moment is ideal. Of course it would be very much better if all the loose ends had been finally tied up, but I think there are very good reasons why he should go out, and one of them is partly the momentum reason, which is extremely important.
I have said in many Statements in this House over the past three months that I am really fearful of delay. I fear that the ball of wool we have so carefully wound

983
together is going to unravel. I am particularly fearful at the moment about stability. One has only to look at the events of last week-end, for example, to see what can happen and I believe that the arrival of my noble friend will have a stabilising and good effect. Of course, the acceptance of his authority relates to the Salisbury Government, in the sense that in our deliberations at the Lancaster House Conference Bishop Muzorewa agreed, when the British Governor arrived, to step down from exercising the authority of Prime Minister. That is what that means. So that my noble friend will be in the position of actually exercising the authority in Salisbury.
As I have said to your Lordships in the Statement, I saw both sides at Lancaster House just before I came down to your Lordships' House, and the contacts that we have had over the past weekend and so on really lead me to believe that the proposals which have been put forward should allay the fears of the Patriotic Front. I am therefore hopeful that we shall get a quick agreement. I personally explained the position about my noble friend Lord Soames to the Leaders of the Patriotic Front. Salisbury also know about this and are in the process of dissolving their Parliament today.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, may I, too, wish the noble Lord, Lord Soames, complete success on his critical mission and also congratulate the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on his considerable achievement. May I press him on one point; namely, the relationship of the new Governor with the armed forces of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, which have recently been making incursions over the border? Is the noble Lord satisfied that when the new Governor takes residence he will have some control over the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia forces, and that from that point of view there will be a cease-fire?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. When my noble friend arrives there, nothing can be done without the Governor's authority.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, all I should like to say, as the oldest surviving
984
Member of both Houses of Parliament, is that I am sure the whole House would want not only to give its best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, but also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on a personal triumph which, whatever the ultimate outcome, will ring down the pages of history.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind, but we have some difficult times to go through. With, I hope, the help and the determination of every Member of your Lordships' House, we shall get through them and come to an end where there are free and fair elections which represent the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, at the risk of repeating what my noble friend Lord Boothby has said, because I could not be quite sure that I heard him, may I ask my noble friend whether he will accept that I believe the whole House would like to pay tribute to the patience, toleration and admirable persistence that he has shown during the time that he has presided over this most important conference.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord reassure me on one point? So long as the ceasefire does not come into existence—that is, until it is effectively implemented—does it remain the duty of the Rhodesian Government to protect the people of Rhodesia against bandits, or whatever one calls them, who are attacking, and to take such measures as it considers necessary for their defence? Secondly, does the noble Lord, Lord Soames, immediately on his arrival, become the commander of those forces? If so, can we be reassured that the commander of the forces will be on the same side, and that they will have the full support of the new Governor to take such measures as they consider necessary to protect the people of Rhodesia?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said, nothing can be done without the Governor's authority. I hope that there is going to be a cease-fire. Until such time as there is a cease-fire, it will be up to the Governor to decide what to do.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to be a little more forthcoming with this House? Would he not agree that over the past few weeks the one single issue that has prevented agreement on the cease-fire is the belief—and I stress the word, "belief"—on the part of the Patriotic Front that its forces could be massacred, could be attacked, by the forces of the Salisbury régime? He has said in his Statement that there will be disengagement and that he believes his new proposals will satisfy the Patriotic Front. Could he tell this House where the forces of the Salisbury regime are going to be stationed during the interim period, by whom they are going to be monitored and what authority the Governor will have over them to prevent such incidents as the invasion of Zambia and Mozambique over the last weekend?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right. There is an enormous amount of distrust on both sides, and somewhat naturally if one considers the history of the situation. What will happen under the cease-fire proposals is that the Rhodesian forces will be asked to disengage first, and will go close to the vicinity of their bases. After that, the Patriotic Front will be asked to assemble in a number of places, with their arms and under their own commanders. There are a number of areas to which they will go where they will keep their arms, where they will be under their own commanders and where there will be monitors. In exactly the same measure, this will happen to the Rhodesian forces, though of course there may be more bases for the Rhodesian forces, because there are, in fact, more Rhodesians. But, of course, all this depends upon what actually happens during the cease-fire and during the assembly itself.
There is a great distrust on the part of both sides as to whether anybody really will do these things, and so the reciprocal separation of the forces will, in effect, depend upon whether or not there is a real commitment by both sides to the cease-fire. I hope, in the proposals which I have put to the Patriotic Front and to the conference at Lancaster House, that I have reassured them on this point, because I agree with the noble Lord that it is a
986
real point. Certainly, if all the Patriotic Front forces assemble with their arms and all cross-border movements of armed Patriotic Front personnel cease, there will be no need for Rhodesian forces to deploy from their company bases. Therefore, there will be this reciprocal disengagement. The Governor will command both the Patriotic Front forces and the Rhodesian forces; at least, all those who assemble at the places and who are under his command. Everybody who assembles will be lawful and will be under the Governor's command, whether they be part of the Patriotic Front forces or the Rhodesian forces. Anybody who does not is unlawful.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, just to reassure us on one point, will the Governor have his mind particularly directed to the possible intimidation of the electors, as the election campaign gets under way, by terrorists, bandits or whatever they are who are still free in the bush?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that that is something which will be in everybody's mind and it will be up not only to the Governor, but to the observers who will be there. I imagine that the world Press will be there, and then the monitoring forces will be there. I cannot believe that Rhodesia in these next few weeks is going to be a lonely place. I think that there are going to be a great many people there, and I hope they will be able to see that intimidation is kept to the very minimum.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, is being asked to carry unlimited responsibility with absolutely no power to discharge the task imposed upon him? He will doubtless have noticed that in another place and in the columns of the Press the historical parallel has been drawn of Gordon's going to Khartoum. But would he agree that that is not an exact parallel today, because had the Government chosen they could have given the noble Lord, Lord Soames, effective power to impose the will and authority of this country on Rhodesia, by stationing one or two squadrons of Phantoms? But for some reason, which one can only guess at, they have chosen to send Lord Soames out to Rhodesia, just as

987
the Liberal Administration sent Gordon out to Khartoum to discharge responsibility with no power of any kind whatsoever.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, nobody denies that there are risks in this situation. There would have been the most appalling risks if Her Majesty's Government had recognised Bishop Muzorewa's Government on 3rd May. There would have been the most appalling risks if the Government had done nothing and had allowed the situation to continue, a situation in which the war was getting worse and worse and more and more people were being killed. There are risks in every situation. All I can say to the noble Lord is that, if in the last three months the Government had not been prepared to take any risks, we should not have got as far as we have.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Debate on the amendment resumed.
3.51 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not know whether it is your Lordships' wish that we should continue the debate which was initiated by the Chairman of Committees and the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Northfield. May I say to my noble friend Lord Shackleton that I fully endorse the proposal of the Procedure Committee for the setting up of a Select Committee on Science and Technology. I believe that this is one of the crucial areas. However, having recognised the importance of this committee I should have hoped that we could be a little more generous in our support of the committee.
My noble friend has moved his amendment and if he is going to divide the House I shall join him. However, I should like to ask him whether that is the wisest course to adopt at this moment. My memory goes back a few years to the time when the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, introduced a report from the European Economic Scrutiny Committees. Your Lordships' House then expressed concern about manpower: whether there would be sufficient Members of your Lordships' House to support those committees. Those
988
fears were of no consequence; we have managed to support those committees in a most admirable way. Concern was also expressed about accommodation: where were those committees going to sit? Accommodation was found for them.
There was a third issue, and I touch upon it quite deliberately: what were to be the terms of reference of those committees? If the officials who were advising the Leader of the House of the day had had their way, we should have had terms of reference which were identical to those in the House of Commons. The reason why the committees of your Lordships' House have been so successful and so admired is that your Lordships' House insisted on wider terms of reference. It was because of those terms of reference, so drafted, that the committees have been so successful.
When, therefore, I see in the report that the Procedure Committee gave the balance of advantage, on grounds of accommodation and manpower resources, to the setting up of a Select Committee on Science and Technology as opposed to the proposals relating to my own Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, I do not find them to be very convincing. I believe the truth to be more fundamental than that. I believe it to be a natural and understandable desire on the part of those who sit on the two Front Benches—and I have spent a few years sitting on one or other of those Front Benches so I know what that desire is—not to see too great a change. The desire is for the power of Members not to become too enlarged—to become too free from the control of business and the way that business is conducted. I believe that this is a fundamental and an understandable reason.
May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to cast his mind back to one of the reasons why the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure was set up. It was set up after 1975 and 1976—years of horror, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to them, when this House was asked to take an ever-increasing quantity of legislation, mainly at the end of the Session. There was deep concern throughout your Lordships' House that we were passing legislation that had hardly been examined either in Committee or at Report. There can be no question at all

989
but that it was that sense of unease which brought about the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure.
If the two Front Benches are against the proposals, I can only say that four ex-Leaders of your Lordships' House sat on my committee: the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and myself. Most of the committee members had had experience over a wide period of time, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. If one were to look at the list of membership of that committee one could hardly believe that they were a bunch of fundamental radicalists. We all sought to meet a problem.
I would say only this to my noble friend: that this may not be the time for him to press his amendment. I think that the resistance of the two Front Benches is such that whatever may be done it will be very difficult for the House to prevail. At the moment it is easy for there to be a touch of complacency. The House is sitting on three days a week and is able to take debates on the reports of the European Scrutiny Committees in a leisurely way and at the right time in the afternoon—not late at night, at 11 or 12 o'clock, as was the case in 1975 and 1976. I wonder what the Chief Whip of the Opposition foresees the position will be at the end of the Session.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Chaos, my Lords!
Lord SHEPHERD: I believe, my Lords, that we shall be in a similar or even worse situation than in 1975 and 1976, and that Members of this House will be saying, "We are passing legislation under great pressure, legislation which has hardly been examined. We, as a revising Chamber, are once again failing to perform our real role as a revising Chamber." May I say to my noble friend that at the end of this Session memories of 1975 and 1976 may come back and that those noble Lords who have only recently joined your Lordships' House will recoil with horror and dismay at what the situation will be.
Reform comes when there are pressures for reform. I do not think those pressures exist at the moment, but they will come.
990
It may well be that the proposals which were made by the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure will be taken up because there will be a groundswell of feeling in your Lordships' House. So I would urge my noble friend not to press his amendment today. I think that the battle will be won and that reform will come. I do not think he will get his amendment today. Nevertheless, I believe it will be inevitable. In any case, I hope that the House will agree to the setting up of a Select Committee on Science and Technology.
4 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, invited me to join in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me to cast my mind back to 1976. I do not mind saying that I do so with a certain modest hesitation in view of these new-found responsibilities and the evident controversy of the particular subject; but I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House would have wished to say a word about the view of the Government and his view as Leader of the House.
The Procedure Committee had to consider whether to proceed with an experimental committee along the lines suggested in Recommendation 16 of the Practice and Procedure Committee and what response to make to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that a Select Committee on Science and Technology should be appointed. Serious doubts had been expressed, not least by the Leader of the House and by his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Peart, about the viability of the proposed experimental committee and about the series of committees for which it was intended to pave the way. These doubts will not be diminished by the decision of another place to set up 12 committees to scrutinise the work of all the main Government departments. On the other hand, the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which the Procedure Committee decided to support, was, of course, for a Science and Technology Committee—a subject which is not the responsibility of a single Government department, and one which is not within the remit of a Commons Committee, and yet one which is a subject of the first

991
importance for this country and which is a field in which this House can boast a great deal of expertise and experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reminded us that some 80 Members of your Lordships' House have experience in this field. He said that 13 Members are Fellows of the Royal Society, among them its president, the noble Lord, Lord Todd. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I doubt whether there is any other legislature in the world which could boast such distinction in the field of science. As a member of the Government I am bound to say that I for one would not relish the prospect of an experimental committee which would pave the way for a whole series of committees which would place a considerable additional burden on Government departments and which would lead to a considerable increase in the staff of your Lordships' House. The House would perhaps have forgiven my noble friend the Leader for a slight bias on this point as he has spent some considerable time since early May, since coming into office, in looking for ways of doing just the reverse and of trying to reduce the cost of the public service. Of course he did not allow this to sway him unduly and, as Leader of the House and as somebody coming in with a fresh eye to the problem, he felt that the kind of committees that were proposed would place an unreasonable burden on the House, which is already required increasingly to operate like a full-time Chamber, which of course it is not.
In addition, as I have mentioned, serious doubts have been expressed about the practicality of the scheme from a procedural point of view. When he came to weigh all these alternatives my noble friend reached the firm conclusion that in his view the interests of the House could best be served by the appointment of a Committee on Science and Technology as an alternative to the experimental committee, both on the grounds of the suitability of the policy area for the proposed committee and in order to make the best use of the time that your Lordships can give for the extra work which would be involved. A desirable and, from the Government's point of view, a not insignificant consequence of this course would also be that it would require only a modest
992
addition to the permanent staff of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that there was a question of good faith concerned in this. But there is not in fact an issue of good faith here; it is really a question of the best way forward for the House and the way to respond to changing circumstances. What one might describe as the Shackleton-Sherfield proposal was made only relatively recently, and therefore I hope that the House will feel that the sensible course will be to agree to the report of the Procedure Committee so that progress may be made with the Science and Technology Committee; and I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will consider that this particular bird in the hand is worth quite a lot more than further deliberation on the subject and the possibility of more flocks of birds but in the very much more distant future.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he just explain one thing before I decide whether or not to withdraw my amendment? Is he now saying that he and his noble friend the Leader of the House want finally to bury the proposal of the Practice and Procedure Committee by postponing it indefinitely? Is he saying that the agreement reached on the 5th July 1977, is not now to be honoured? If I may quote him, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham said:
"I am willing to rest on the good faith of the Leader of the House that he will carry out this experiment".—[Official Report; 5/7/77, col. 265.)
This is a very deep matter of honour in this House, and before I decide my course of action I should like to know exactly what the noble Earl is now saying about the fate of that agreement reached in July, 1977.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is not of course a question of my noble friend the Leader of the House burying the report or the decisions. The decisions are a matter for the House, and all I can do is to say what advice my noble friend has to offer in the changing circumstances. His advice is that we should go for a Science and Technology Committee.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the reply given by the noble Earl puts me in

993
a most grave situation because it seems to me, with great respect to him, that his words are meant to cover up the fact that nobody here has any intention at all of honouring that agreement of July, 1977. That is the inference that one must draw from what has been said today.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he says it is the inference that no one has any intention of honouring the agreement. The only way in which any kind of procedure can be advanced is by the approval of the House as a whole. It is up to the House to decide what to do. All I can do is to give the House the benefit of my noble friend's views.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl still leaves me in a difficult situation. I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment but it will be with a considerable feeling of betrayal of the work that we did over the years. The way of parliamentary reform is a difficult one. I was chairman of the House of Commons Procedure Committee for many difficult years. We have to fight over years; much depends upon coming back again and again. I also recognise that saying to this House that there are matters of good faith at stake is not very pleasant, or to challenge whether we are doing our job properly. I accept all those difficulties in my path and I fully understand that the House may be uneasy at my pressing the matter unduly. I shall withdraw my amendment, but I shall return to the matter because I do not think that honour is satisfied.
It is clear to anyone who reads that debate of July 1977 that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, withdrew his Motion that a single experiment should take place and the implementation to be referred to the Procedure Committee because, as he said, he had the support of his own Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; he had the offer from the Government Front Bench, from my noble friend Lord Peart, of an experiment in the following Session. That was a clear promise to the House, as we understand it, in the way that understandings are reached across the Floor of this Chamber. I state again: it will be a bad day for the House if we reach the point when undertakings and understandings of that kind are subsequently broken. It will make our
994
business impossible if clear undertakings of that kind are not honoured.
With that protest, my Lords, and with the promise that I shall insist on returning to this matter every time the Procedure Committee reports, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STIRLING DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
GREATER GLASGOW PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
KILMARNOCK AND LOUDOUN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
SCOTS EPISCOPAL FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

SHIPBUILDING BILL
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (GREEK ACCESSION) BILL
4.12 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause [Extended meaning of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties"]:
On Question, Whether the clause shall stand Part of the Bill?
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: I intervene for one minute to express what I was not able to express at Second Reading; my personal delight that Greece is joining the European Community. I believe she has much to give Europe and much to receive from Europe. I am especially happy to welcome home my dear Greek democratic friends who came from prison and from exile, Ministers now and ex-Ministers, and especially my personal friend the Speaker of the Greek Parliament, Mr. Papaspyrou. Greece is now free and now joins a free Europe. Democracy began in Greece. She invented the word. She created the word, "Europe", and all the friends of freedom throughout Europe are happy that this Bill is going through the House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. I was able at Second Reading to express my pleasure at the impending accession of Greece and I will not repeat my words, but this is the appropriate stage of the passage of this Bill at which to elicit the Government's views on certain matters which will arise when Greece does accede. There will be consequences and repercussions for British industry, some of them good, such as the new opportunities which the Greek market will afford, others difficult. I made reference to this subject briefly at Second Reading, as did one or two other speakers.
996
That debate naturally covered a very wide area. It touched on the general effect of the accession of Greece as well as the expected membership of Spain and Portugal afterwards. The enlargement of the Community from nine members to twelve will require changes in the institutions and in the methods of the work of the EEC. All this was discussed, but, above all, the political reasons for accepting the three new members. In the reply from the spokesman for the Government on 27th November he could not, and of course was not expected to, deal with particular points affecting industry in the United Kingdom. This Committee stage today must be the proper occasion for this, as I reminded the Government at the beginning of last week. But it need not occupy much of the time of the House this afternoon. I support the Bill, as I made clear, and I hope it will be on the statute book before Christmas.
The transitional periods in the treaties for Greece of five and seven years, and the special mechanism to ensure that Greece is not a net contributor during the first five years are important. The United Kingdom industry which is likely to be the most vulnerable to damage during this period is the textile industry. Greece has for some years enjoyed associate membership of the EEC. Those customs barriers which now exist are to be reduced during the transitional periods. There is one situation, for example, which could all too easily ensue. The reduction could lead to a rapid rise in imports in cotton yarn within the present area of the EEC. That would cause serious disruption for the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries. This is one example of what may happen.
There is a general safeguard in the main Treaty of Accession in Article 130, but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne at Second Reading made a significant general statement. He said that in a serious situation the Commission can, under Article 130, authorise the United Kingdom Government during the transitional period to take protective measures. That is an important safety measure. I trust that there would be no delay and that the United Kingdom Government would press for the use of this safeguard, if such a situation did arise, on behalf of the textile or any other United Kingdom industry which found itself suddenly

997
threatened. There is some additional action that the Government can take now. It would also be prudent to negotiate special arrangements with Greece for textiles and clothing. What is the Government's attitude to this proposal, which has been put to them before, for these direct negotiations, as well as the safeguard clause?
Then there is another matter which needs the Government's attention and on which a statement would be welcome today. Under Protocol 7 of the Treaty of Accession of Greece very generous investment aid and tax concessions could be made available to firms from outside the EEC who established themselves or expanded in Greece. There were similar provisions in the Irish Treaty of Accession, and those resulted in unfair competition and damage to our textile industry after January 1973 when Ireland became a member of the EEC. What do the Government propose to do to ensure that there is no repetition of that in the case of Greece? It would be provident to consider this now, because similar provisions are likely to he included in the accession treaties for Portugal and Spain. Indeed, Portugal will pose broadly the same problems as Greece for the British textile and clothing industries. It is timely and vital now, on the accession of the first of these three new members, to determine how fair trade is to be maintained and how sudden and serious disruptions or distortions of markets can be handled, and handled quickly.
This is a short Bill and its substance is all contained in Clause 1. The clause accepts for the United Kingdom the results of long and complex negotiations: pages of the Treaty of Accession for Greece—with all its appendages—to the EEC, and also the Treaty of Accession to the European Atomic Energy Community and the Council's decision on accession to the Coal and Steel Community. It is short, but it is the most important measure that this House has been asked to pass in this session so far.
From the United Kingdom's experience with the EEC over the last nine years, I suggest that some lessons can be learnt. I refer to the period of negotiation—1970 to 1972—and then our membership since January 1973. It is worth while to
998
consider at very early stages the problems likely to arise and to anticipate them: know the rules of the club and assess the effects of their application. That maxim applies especially where there are transitional periods and temporary financial mechanisms. It is not too soon now to be determining the courses of action open to our Government in circumstances which, as I have pointed out, can clearly be foreseen. That is what I am asking the Government to do.
4.23 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My noble friend has once more raised some extremely pertinent and valid points. I shall endeavour to give as full and frank an answer as possible without trespassing, too far, I hope, on your Lordships' patience. On the general question of safeguard arrangements for textiles, I must make it clear at the outset that the Government are acutely conscious of the need for adequate safeguards for the United Kingdom textile industry in the face of low cost imports from abroad. One such provision, as my noble friend mentioned, has been negotiated with Greece in the shape of Article 130 of the Act of Accession. That article will permit the Commission to authorise a Member State to take protective measures if serious difficulties arise in the textile sector, or indeed any other sector, as a result of Greek exports. This was the best safeguard which it was possible to negotiate, but it does not mean that we are entirely happy. A gradual phasing out of import controls would clearly have been preferable, but the obstacle to that was the fact that there are no formal quota restrictions under the present arrangements.
For the last few years Greece has been voluntarily restraining exports to the Community, but any formal or even informal continuation of this arrangement after accession could face legal difficulties because of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome on the free movement of goods. Nevertheless, we wish to make it quite clear to the Greek Government that they must leave the Greek textile industry in no doubt of the dangers of building up too rapid an increase in exports of sensitive products, and of our determination to invoke the safeguard clause should that be necessary.

999
It is not clear whether our Community partners will be speaking in similar terms to the Greeks. In general, the United Kingdom is more sensitive on the question of textile imports than most of our Community partners, because of the importance of our textile industry and the degree to which it has suffered from low cost competition in recent years. I am sure that the Greeks will understand our special position.
I turn now to the question raised by my noble friend, of State aids to industry. The Government fully agree that Greece must not be allowed to exploit unfairly the discretion over State aids for which Protocol 7 in the Act of Accession provides. It is, however, important to bear in mind that the purpose of Protocol 7 is to help Greece to bear the full brunt of Community competition in Greek industries which are relatively weak. This is not at all the case with the Greek textile industry. I am sure that the Commission, who will have to authorise Greek State aids, is well aware of this and will be keen to avoid worsening the distressed condition of the textile industry in the Community as a whole.
The Irish case, to which my noble friend referred, is not a close parallel in this respect, since our textile industry is now in a much more parlous state than when Ireland was authorised to give aids to its textile industry. It is also worth bearing in mind that the United Kingdom, which has not infrequently sought and received authorisation to grant State aids to industry, could be accused of inconsistency were it to complain too loudly of others being granted similar discretion.
Finally, I think that it is worth recalling that we have always recognised that Greek accession, and enlargement as a whole, would bring not only political and economic benefits, but also certain economic costs. In general, our traders have more to gain than to lose from Greek accession. However, textiles is an exception. We should not forget that, although Greek exports may increase to some extent after accession, at present Greece comes well down in the league of low cost suppliers in the United Kingdom, providing only 1 per cent. of our textile imports in 1978, worth £19 million, and incidentally taking £12 million worth of our textile exports. It is, therefore,
1000
important to see the problem in that wider perspective. I hope that that further clarification will help my noble friend and that your Lordships will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether entering the Common Market will make it necessary for the Greek Government to stop subsidising, as they have done for some years, by reduced taxation on goods exported in the textile industry?
Lord TREFGARNE: I could not answer that question without looking into the matter. I think that it probably would be, but I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to my noble friend for replying to the points which I raised—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am so sorry. Does someone else wish to speak? We are in Committee. I thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was rising to his feet, he wished to address us on Clause 1. However, I understand that he does not wish to address the Committee at this stage. Therefore, I shall speak on Clause 1 in this Committee stage.
I wish, of course, to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who has given a very full reply to the points which I raised. I had, of course, given him notice of the points that I wished to raise and I am glad that he has been able to go as far as he has gone because there are a number of Government departments involved in this matter. He confirmed that the voluntary agreements which now exist cannot continue after Greece has become a Member of the EEC, because they would be illegal. However, I do not think that he dealt with the suggestion that I made—if he did deal with it, I missed it—that it might be possible for the United Kingdom to enter into direct negotiations to reach an agreement which was not a voluntary one.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am sorry that I was not clear to my noble friend. Our understanding is that it would not be

1001
possible to do what my noble friend is suggesting without contravening provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful for that addition because I understood that the present voluntary agreements would have to come to an end. However, I had thought, and certainly some sections of the industry had thought, that it would be legal to conclude a new agreement direct with Greece. My noble friend then dealt with Protocol 7. I was glad that he recognised that there is a possible source of difficulty there. He pointed out that at the time of the accession of the Republic of Ireland at the beginning of 1973 the United Kingdom textile industry appeared to be in a much more robust position to be able to compete with new investment coming in on a large scale, with unfair assistance in Ireland. But in saying that he clearly accepts that the position is different now and that the position of the United Kingdom would be damaged if similar action were to take place in Greece.
My noble friend gave the figures for trade with Greece in textiles, and I remind him that Greece will be setting the pace for Portugal and that what we are discussing today will also have direct relevance to the other two prospective members. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving those assurances, which are the most important ones that the British industry as a whole needs with the accession of these three countries.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for almost interrupting him. However, there were at least three Members of your Lordships' Committee, on both sides, who still thought that we were on Report, having regard to the previous five Bills which were, of course, considered on Report.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Bill. As the Bill deals with very important matters relating to franchise, I have been told that it is incumbent upon me to give a fairly full explanation of my reasons for asking leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Bill. However, in view of the heavy business earlier this afternoon and because I am very conscious that over 20 people wish to speak on the next important matter, I shall, with your Lordships' leave, be as brief as possible.
This Bill is identical to a Bill which I had the privilege of introducing to your Lordships earlier this year in the period of office of the Labour Government. Your Lordships passed it without amendment or Division. However, that Bill was objected to in the other place; before it could be debated, its life was terminated by the general election. I, therefore, moved the First Reading of the present Bill a few weeks ago. The prime object of the Bill was to restore to men and women designated by the term "Service spouses", resident in the United Kingdom, certain civic rights which had unfortunately been taken away from them as a result of the Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976.
Most of the Service spouses were women and they objected to the procedure which was laid down in that Act. They remonstrated and protested. They said that they were resident in this country and, therefore, should be allowed to vote in the ordinary way as does any woman resident in this country. Some of them said that they were not going to be regarded as appendages of their military husbands on non-military matters relating to voting.
One of the matters about which they protested was the fact that under the 1976 Act they were forced to register as Service voters and, therefore, on the register of electors there appears against their names the letter "S". For reasons which I need not go into now, which not only included inconvenience to these women but also involved security matters, there were tremendous protests. Your Lordships will remember that last week on 6th

1003
December this House passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1979 which removed the requirement that the names of Service voters and merchant seamen should be marked on the register with the letters "S" or "M" respectively. That was one of the difficulties which my Bill was intended to remove.
Also, in the other place Mr. Cranley Onslow, the Member of Parliament for Woking, was fortunate in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. On 9th November he was able to introduce for Second Reading a Bill to amend the 1976 Act in a more comprehensive manner than is intended in the Bill now in my name. The Bill in the other place had the support and assistance of the Government and the Opposition and has, therefore, come to your Lordships without having suffered any Division in the other place. I shall have the privilege of introducing that Bill from the other place to your Lordships shortly. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Bill at present standing in my name.
On Question, Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
4.38 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill which I have the privilege of introducing to your Lordships has been passed through all its stages in another place. It is intituled:
"An Act to make further provision with respect to the registration for electoral purposes of persons having a service qualification and the correction of registers of electors; and for purposes connected with those matters".
Therefore, this Bill is much broader than the Bill which your Lordships have been good enough to give me leave to withdraw.
Many wives of Servicemen were effectively disfranchised as a result of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1976. They did not feel prepared to register as Service voters for a variety of reasons. First, there was the question of the "S" against their names on the electoral register. Then they
1004
protested against the form of attestation which had been imposed upon them, and they were surprised and annoyed that they were not allowed to vote in the way an ordinary woman in this country is able to vote. The objections, of course, apply to a few men who are also spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
They had to make an appropriate declaration. They objected to the fact that it had to be attested by a commissioned officer, a warrant officer, a noncommissioned officer or by any officer of any Government department. Therefore, many Servicemen and Servicemen's wives have found this procedure very distasteful. The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to enable the wife or husband of a member of the Armed Forces residing in the United Kingdom to have the option to register as a Service voter or to opt to register as a civilian elector and vote in the usual way.
However, the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is quite unrelated to Clause 1. It enacts powers for the electoral registration officer to amend the published register of electors so as to include the name of a qualified elector who has been omitted from the register. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with certain consequential matters to which I shall refer later.
As this is a question of franchise and civic rights of fundamental importance and indeed a precious possession of every person, perhaps I should take up a little more of your Lordships' time in describing the background to the Bill and its various clauses. I shall in the circumstances be as brief as I can, as I do not wish to delay the 20 or so persons who wish to speak on another matter.
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 sets out the persons who can have the right to be put on the electoral register in order to vote at election time. Section 10 of the 1949 Act included at subsection (4) wives or husbands of members of the Services. Then came the 1976 Act, which changed the situation in regard to spouses of members of the Armed Forces in that it compelled them all to be registered as Service voters. Therefore, Clause 1 of this Bill contains a number of subsections aimed primarily to restore to Service spouses the right either to continue

1005
to be a Service voter, in which case there are certain advantages arising, or to exercise their rights as a civilian voter. There are also subsections which restate the present legal position, and those two subsections have been introduced for easy reading.
I turn now to Clause 2. Your Lordships may recall that there was a working party in 1978 which dealt with questions relating to voting rights and the procedures for voting. In Section 37 of the report of the working party on electoral registers in May 1978 it was recommended that existing legislation should be amended to permit the electoral registration officer to add to the published register the name of an elector he is satisfied was entitled to be registered on the qualifying date. Then the report goes on to cite the many circumstances in which a man or woman's name might have been omitted from the register.
Then in paragraph 38 of the report it said:
"An amendment made under the procedure recommended in the preceding paragraph should not be effective for a pending election if made during the election period. This is consistent with existing provisions for amending the register. It should be open to objections procedure and there should be a right of appeal to the courts against the electoral registers' officers' decision".
As I said, in view of the heavy business of the House I do not propose to go into all the subsections of Clause 2. I am fortified in taking this course because the Bill was carefully considered in the other place. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Bill has had the fullest consideration with outside interests, apart from having received the support of the Government and the Opposition in the other place. The consultations during last summer involved political parties, local authority associations, many electoral registration officers, and, not least, the Armed Forces Wives Association, in which I must declare an interest as I have the honour to be one of its three political vice-presidents.
The Bill was introduced for Second Reading in the other place on 9th November by Mr. Christopher Onslow.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? When he referred to Mr. Christopher
1006
Onslow, was he not in fact intending to refer to Mr. Cranley Onslow?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that correction. Wherever I used the word "Christopher" I meant "Cranley", and I am sorry that I in-advertently made that error. I should like to pay a warm tribute first of all to Mr. Cranley Onslow for piloting this Bill through the other place with such skill, and secondly to Mr. George Cunningham, the Member of Parliament for Islington South and Finsbury, who, as the Opposition spokesman, took so much trouble in identifying the clarifying aspects of the Bill.
The result of all these all-party discussions and discussions with outside institutions and persons was that the Opposition in the other place were able to let this Bill go through on the nod. The success of these discussions around the Bill was also largely due to the close personal interest taken in the Bill by the Minister of State for the Home Office, Mr. Leon Brittan. I should like to pay a tribute to his work and also to the assiduous efforts of members of the staff of his Department.
This Bill, therefore, does not come before your Lordships as an ordinary Private Member's Bill drafted in an amateur form. It is indeed a well-polished effort, fully examined by able Home Office officials and Members of the other place. I commend this Bill warmly to your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
4.48 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. After the clear explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, we realise that this Bill is to provide the remedy for faults in previous legislation. Under the Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976 it seems evident that neither House of Parliament understood what a grievance they were imposing on Service wives. Apparently even in the year 1976 we were unaware that married women wanted to be recognised as independent citizens and not merely, as the noble Lord said, as appendages of their

1007
Service husbands. The sponsors of the Bill in another place freely acknowledged that this was to correct a mistake that was made previously. So much for the quality of the revising powers of this House. We apparently were at fault along with another place. Apparently none of us foresaw what indignation the earlier legislation was going to arouse.
The second part of the Bill is to remedy another fault in previous legislation. Apparently we had not provided power for registration officers to correct omissions from the list. If people were left out in slabs, they were left out and apparently there were no means of putting them in, even though it was a simple error of omission, and therefore the Bill is to be supported because it provides a remedy for those two faults.
Whenever a Representation of the People Bill comes before Parliament there are always side-effects, always other issues which merit consideration. Close on the heels of this Bill came another Representation of the People Bill in another place. Only last Friday, a Bill was brought forward to provide electoral facilities for people on holiday, a matter which has received considerable attention, especially when general elections or by-elections are held in the summer and at holiday times. At the last Conservative Party Conference approving noises were made about doing something to provide electoral facilities for those who had unavoidably to be away on polling day because they had already booked holidays or accommodation, and last Friday the Minister of State at the Home Office gave a blessing to the Bill, saying that the Government's approach to it was positive and they wished to see something done.
Unfortunately, there were procedural snags about the Bill—there always are—and the suggestion was made that it would probably be better if these matters were dealt with in a Government Bill. That is the old story; a Private Members' Bill never does the job properly so one must wait for a Government Bill which will probably do it just as badly or not do it at all. That is the chief danger with a Government Bill; one never gets it. There is always pressure on the time of Parliament and these things are squeezed out.
1008
Anyway, the Minister of State in another place who gave his blessing to the Bill finished the afternoon by talking it out; so much for the Government's positive approach to the Bill. So the Bill was left in suspense last Friday afternoon as the clock struck four. It seems to me that we could improve the shining hour this afternoon by giving some help to a Bill which the Minister of State, after giving it his blessing, left to the mercy of the Private Members' Bill procedure, and that is the first thing I think of in this connection.
Why can we not take the opportunity of turning this small but important Bill into something even more worthwhile? I am advised that in order to do that it would be necessary to extend its Long Title. This, I understand, can be done if what one proposes to do is relevant to the Bill. This is a Representation of the People Bill, which is presumably about as wide as any Long Title can go, and I would wish to see whether we might make this a more worthwhile Bill by including in it other matters which this House might consider. We are pressed for time this afternoon and I do not wish to dwell unduly long on the items I have in mind, but we may not be so hard pressed another day when we come to consider the Bill in its later stages. Now that the Protection of Public Information Bill has been dropped and the Local Government Bill, a sizeable piece of work which was coming before your Lordships' House, is not to come after all, we may have the time which another place will not to look at further reforms in our electoral law.
The second matter which we might well consider while we are at it is the longstanding grievance of British citizens working abroad who are deprived of the vote in elections in this country and in referenda unless they have a residence in this country, and "residence" may be an actual residence or one of those legal problems described as a "constructive residence". "Residence" is a wonderful word in taxation and electoral law and the lawyers have been playing about with it for years. So that is another grievance which might be considered. I have heard from some of my noble friends that the real trouble about British citizens living and working abroad is that they are probably undesirable citizens, tax exiles, or there may be others who choose not to live in

1009
the land of liberty and endeavour but who prefer to enjoy the sunshine in the South of France; so, they say, there is no reason why we should give them any voice in the future of this country when they do not live in it or intend to return to it. That is arguable and I will not dwell on that.
I come to the third point, which is much nearer home, and that is the franchise for Members of your Lordships' House. Why do we put up with this indignity? Why do we say that lunatics, bankrupts and Peers shall be excluded from the franchise? We share this triple crown of incapacity and are not allowed to appear on the register of parliamentary voters.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten also prisoners serving long-term sentences?
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Along with infants and aliens, my Lords?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: As to who we really are is a matter we can go into in more detail on another occasion, my Lords. All the same, what has become of that old tag about no taxation without representation? Since your Lordships' House has been deprived of all parliamentary authority on matters of taxation and finance, why have we not long since claimed, then, to have some voice in the affairs of the country relating to economics, finance and taxation, along with other citizens? I am sure there is a history to this matter, but admit frankly that I have not looked it up. I do not think we need dwell unduly on the history of some of our institutions; we look at them in the light of modern requirements, and there is not the slightest reason why Peers should be denied the vote on the parliamentary register and should be deprived of the rights of every other citizen.
It is said that these important matters should go to a Speaker's Conference. We have believed that in the past perhaps, but I was interested to see that last Friday the Minister of State wanted to put the—
"fact on record to make clear that we cannot regard a Speaker's Conference as being a necessary certificate before proceeding in these matters".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/79; col. 870.]
I agree with that, especially since I served on a Speaker's Conference at great length on the question of reducing the age of qualification for the franchise from 21
1010
years of age. The Speaker's Conference, by a very large majority, decided against reducing the age of voting to 18 and proposed a compromise of the age of 20. But what did the House of Commons do with that? They brushed it aside and said, "It is either 21 or 18. There is nothing in between. If, under the Latey Report, young persons are to be able to marry at the age of 18, they should be allowed to vote. If they are to be allowed to take out mortgages, they should be allowed to vote," although originally this business of 18 was, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"; but when "old enough to fight" was taken out of the argument, there were then other reasons for reducing the age for the vote to 18. I mention that merely as an illustration that, even when a matter goes before the Speaker's Conference, Parliament does not always accept what it says.
I give notice, my Lords, that I will study this matter closely and see whether I can help improve the electoral law and widen the franchise to cover those who may have grievances over being excluded at present. I would not wish to imperil the Bill. I wish merely to consider making the attempt to improve it, to extend it, and to send it on its way as a more worthwhile Bill, completing a job only half done in another place at the present time.
5.1 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill, and I should like to speak in particular about Clause 2. I do so because I was a member of the Home Office Working Party on the Electoral Register, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has referred. People's names are left off the register for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes the household form A is not received, or, for various reasons, there may be a failure to complete it. Some people either do not care about it, or forget about it. Sometimes people will put on the form the names of themselves and their family, but leave off the names of other qualified persons living in the dwelling. We all know that only about a third of the eligible young voters who become 18 in the course of the year appear to become registered. All of us who are involved in elections at various stages know that at election times there are countless people who suddenly find that

1011
they are not on the register. Although there are provisions for people to check the electors' lists, the number who say, "I must go down to the post office or the library to see whether my name is on" are very few indeed. Moreover, people who have been on the register for years have no reason to believe that they are no longer on it; hence they do not check the lists.
In 1969 there was the important amendment which gave the electoral registration officers the power to place on the electoral register the names of persons who had been on the electors' lists but had been left off inadvertently. The proposal in Clause 2 of the Bill goes much further, and I welcome it. It is that where an electoral registration officer has sufficient evidence to prove that a person should be registered, even though his name is not on the electoral list, that person should be included. That proposal is in full accordance with one of the recommendations of the working party, as has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
I was pleased to note that the noble Lord referred to the provision for an objections procedure. The report stated quite clearly that members of the working party were greatly impressed by the views of the political parties at national level that an essential part of the registration procedure is a claims and objections stage. If, as is proposed in the Bill, we are to have a very important improvement, it is vital that the objections procedure should be maintained. I hope that during the course of the debate the House can be told whether—as I believe will be necessary—there are to be revised regulations to deal with this new amendment. It would appear to me rather doubtful whether the present regulations relating to claims and objections, with regard to the preparation of the annual register of electors, would be sufficient to deal with the amendment proposed in the Bill. Therefore, if new regulations are necessary, perhaps during the debate we can be told when draft regulations might be issued.
Of course, the Bill does not meet—and I do not believe that its sponsor intended it to meet—the position of electors who during an election find that
1012
their names are left off the register. I recall that prior to my retirement as national agent of the Labour Party we had countless complaints of this kind, and I am sure that the other political parties had similar complaints. At the last election, and in particular on polling day, the number of complaints we received from one area of London—which was featured in a television programme—could only be described as disgraceful. Whole blocks of people who had been on the register for years, and had lived in the area for years, had been left off the register. I readily accept that nothing can be done about that during the election period. There must be a cut-off date. Electoral registration officers could not possibly cope with the burden of work beyond a certain cut-off date. Therefore despite the amendment, there will be countless people left off the register through no fault of their own. This may arise for a number of reasons; and the report of the working party dealt with some of those points.
Those of us who have experience of being in touch with electoral registration officers in various constituencies know that the work on the electoral register varies considerably. The intensity of the door-to-door canvass also varies considerably. I hope that even though there is to be this amendment, the Ministers concerned, together with the people at the Home Office, will concentrate on the work of registration and will still regard the house-to-house canvass as an essential feature, and one which must be improved in many areas.
As for the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, many of us have always been a little apprehensive of piecemeal amendments to the Representation of the People Act. One can make mistakes. A proposal can be carried on a feeling that something ought to be done, but then the problems of the mechanics may prove very difficult.
For a number of years I was a member of the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee, on which sits representatives of political parties, Home Office experts, representatives of other departments, returning officers, and electoral registration officers, who have great experience. My experience on that committee was that everyone was concerned with one objective: how to improve our electoral law

1013
and how to make it as democratic and as fair as possible at every stage. That often meant hours of deliberating on one simple amendment, to make sure that in making that amendment one did not cause two or three other complications.
Therefore I hope that the House will be very careful in considering any further extensions to the Bill without there being opportunity for a body to look at the matter. Here I do not necessarily suggest a Speaker's Conference, because often a Speaker's Conference refers matters to the Home Office Advisory Committee for expert opinion. I believe that that kind of expert opinion is vitally necessary. In conclusion, in welcoming the Bill, may I say that if there is one inquiry that ought to take place, I believe that it is a thorough, independent inquiry into the whole question of election expenses, a matter which every election agent goes into with some trepidation.
5.9 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to take part in the debate, but I desire to speak very briefly simply to make three points. First, as the father of a serving soldier, with a highly independent daughter-in-law, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for bringing the Bill to us and for dealing with what he is quite right in saying is a grievance among those wives of serving personnel who take their civic duties seriously—and there are many such people. Secondly, I should like to congratulate the author of the Bill in another place, my old friend Mr. Cranley Onslow, who suffered inadvertently from being misnamed. He was responsible for taking the Bill through another place—and, if I may say so, most appropriately, because in another place he represents a constituency inhabited probably by more members of the Armed Forces than is any other in the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, I want to do what over 30 years I have always found very difficult to do; namely, to offer some advice to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He has never yet taken my advice, but there is always a hope that my luck might turn. However, I hope that he will take very seriously the advice given by his noble friend, the noble Lord,
1014
Lord Underhill, who obviously, from his past experience, speaks with enormous authority on these electoral matters—probably with more authority than anybody else in this House.
One is always tempted, when there is a Representation of the People Bill in either House, to come forward with one's own favourite improvements; and I agree wholeheartedly, on the merits, with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in relation to the holiday question. It has always seemed to me very hard, particularly in these days when people have to book their holidays six, eight or nine months in advance in order to get package holiday terms, that if you are honest when going abroad and say you are going on holiday, you cannot get a proxy vote, but if you say you are going on business then it is normally made available. This is an anomaly; and as people, having booked their holidays, have very little choice if the Prime Minister of the day decides, as the Prime Minister of the day did decide this April, suddenly to have an election, they can be disfranchised. But I beg the noble Lord to resist temptation: not to follow the example of Oscar Wilde, who said, "I can resist anything except temptation". Because if the noble Lord succumbs to temptation and, at the Committee stage of this Bill, puts forward all these reasonable amendments, it is perfectly certain that your Lordships, lulled by his eloquence, will accept them.
Then, of course, this Bill will have to go back to another place, to take its place in that crowded programme, for that place to deal with the Lords' amendments; and as another place, in its infinite wisdom and mercy, has decided that it wants to have the first stab at the Local Government Bill—I am bound to say, my Lords, that I wish it luck!—there is not going to be very much time there to deal with Lords' amendments to a Private Member's Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will make delightful speeches at the later stages of this Bill, but will not actually press any amendments.
5.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, bearing in mind that the debate which is to follow has the names of no fewer than 23 of your Lordships down to speak, I am

1015
happily in the position of being able to say what I want to say in a matter of a few minutes. I should like to say from these Benches that in our view this is a wholly desirable Bill which will achieve something that has been long overdue.
I think the only comment I want to make in addition to that is that I understand that the Bill makes provision for the electors' register to be amended after publication. It may well be that I have missed something, but my understanding of the situation is that after the electors have returned the household form every local authority allows a period during which people who think they are entitled to be on the register and have completed the household form A can go down to their local town hall to see whether their name is on it; and, if it is not, to raise the matter of its absence with the electoral officer. I am wondering in what way this is going to be changed when the Bill makes provision for the electors' register to be amended after publication. I thought this was the normal practice, and I am wondering whether this hides some other method which is to be employed. If so, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, or the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whether they could enlighten me on that matter.
5.14 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I am pleased to welcome this Representation of the People Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is doubly welcome, both for its substance and for the fact that it is the first Private Member's Bill to have successfully completed its passage through the House of Commons during this present Session. I congratulate the sponsors of the Bill on its speedy and uncontroversial passage through another place, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to afford it a similar reception.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has explained, the Bill makes three important modifications to our electoral law. First, if enacted it would permit the spouses (mainly the wives) of Service personnel residing in the United Kingdom to choose whether they wished to register under the civilian or the service electoral registration schemes. At the moment they must register as Service voters and, as has been
1016
explained, this has given rise to much concern and, indeed, to a substantial number of people losing their votes at the elections earlier this year. Secondly, the Bill provides that the electoral registration declaration made by members of the forces when they register need not in future be attested or countersigned by more senior ranks or public officials. Thirdly, the Bill provides a new power for the electoral registration officer to correct the electoral register after it is published so that the names of those electors who are qualified but who have accidentally been omitted can be included. This is, of course, of general application, and does not apply to Service voters alone.
It may assist the House if I describe in rather more detail the background to the Bill and the consultations which have been conducted on these proposals; and, of course, your Lordships have listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I must, however, reduce my remarks as much as possible, and I hope that this will be with the approval of the House. I feel we should first of all turn our attention to the Service wives. The arrangements made for servicemen and their wives to take part in our elections—a very basic and important right—have not had a particularly happy history. The frequent removals and changes of address, often at short notice, which are suffered by Service families; the absences for substantial periods abroad, and the fact that in many Service situations electoral registration must take a second place to more pressing matters, has meant that under the several schemes tried out since special Service voting was introduced in 1918 the rate of registration, which has no element of compulsion for Service voters, has been consistently lower than all concerned would wish. This has occurred under all Governments, and despite several inquiries and all-party discussions in the Speaker's Conference.
There is some evidence, however, that for serving servicemen the position has improved since the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1976. Noble Lords may recall that this was also a Private Member's Bill, based on Speaker's Conference recommendations, and introduced in another place by the same honourable Member responsible for the

1017
present Bill. It is now the basis of the Service registration scheme, and it may assist your Lordships if I describe this briefly. Servicemen need to register only once during their Service career. Once their registration is forwarded and accepted by the registration officer in respect of their home address, or an address with which they have had some connection, it remains valid until they leave the Services. If they move house they should of course notify the registration officer of a change of address; but they are not required, as are civilian electors, to send in an electoral registration form every year. When they have registered they are entitled to the special privileges of Service voting; voting by proxy when abroad or by post or in person at all national and some local government elections when serving in the United Kingdom.
Before the 1976 arrangements were introduced registration of Service personnel was running at a rate of 25 per cent. or less of those eligible. Since then the overall rate of registration has significantly improved, to the present level of 50 per cent. But there have been problems, and because the franchise and its exercise is so crucial to our democracy the Government wish to lose no time in seeing these put right. Indeed, less than three weeks after taking office my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office Mr. Brittan, to whom tribute has been paid in relation to this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was able to indicate in an adjournment debate in another place that the Government accepted the need for changes in the operation of the Service scheme. He announced that the Government were initiating consultations with the political parties, the electoral registration officers and others closely concerned to see precisely what those changes should be.
One aspect has already been attended to, in that this House gave its approval last week to the regulations which have the effect of removing the special markings on the electoral register which denote service voters and merchant seamen. When approved by the other place—we hope, later this week—and implemented for the next electoral register, this will remove an understandable point of concern to Servicemen and their families. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised
1018
the question of whether new regulations other than those referred to already are necessary. Yes, they are; and these will be brought forward at a later stage.
Two other important aspects of the Service voting scheme are dealt with in the Bill. First subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that it will no longer be necessary for the wives of Servicemen residing in the United Kingdom to register in pursuance of a Service declaration. In future, they will be able to choose to register as civilian or as Service electors. This was the scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, unsuccessfully pressed on the last Administration in the Bill which was passed by the House last Session but which foundered in the Commons on the Dissolution. Over the summer, it has been the subject of considerable debate with electoral registration officers, particularly those in areas with high concentrations of Service voters, and the local authority associations and the political parties. We are grateful to all who have considered these matters for their constructive comments.
There was complete agreement about the need for changes in the system, although it is only fair to say that the local authority associations and the electoral registration officers, while agreeing to the principle that Service wives should register as civilians in the United Kingdom, believe that giving them an option between one system and another could unnecessarily complicate the process and cause difficulties. But, after due consideration and in the light of the support of the political parties, and, not least, of the Service wives themselves for the option scheme, the sponsors of the Bill in the other place decided in its favour; and the Government do not oppose them. We very much hope that when the new scheme is implemented the Service wives will again be fully enfranchised and that any administrative teething problems will soon be sorted out.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill deals with another aspect of the voting scheme which has caused difficulties and complaints from all Service voters. The Bill removes the requirement that all Service declarations should be attested—and I have referred to this earlier. Although the regulations following the 1976 Act considerably

1019
widened the ranks of persons who could countersign the forms, to include, for example, non-commissioned officers and justices of the peace, attestation now seems an unnecessary complication to the system. If electoral registration officers have difficulties in determining the validity of any particular application they can refer to indices of Services personnel kept by the Ministry of Defence centrally. These changes to the Service voting scheme should have the overall effect of restoring the franchise to some of the Service wives who felt unable to register under the old arrangements, and should improve the scheme for all Service electors.
The second clause of the noble Lord's Bill goes wider and affects more particularly the civilian electorate. In effect, it is an implementation of a recommendation made by a Home Office working party in 1978, established on the suggestion of the Speaker's Conference to consider the way in which the electoral register could be kept more up to date. The working party consisted of Home Department representatives, local authority officials and registration officers, academics and representatives of the political parties. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, took part in his previous capacity as a member of the working party. Their recommendation, which is now contained in the Bill before your Lordships' House, will enable the electoral registration officer to correct the register after it is published to omit the names of electors who are qualified. I should make clear that the qualifying date of 10th October (15th September in Northern Ireland) remains central to the system of electoral registration, and that electors must continue to send in their Form 'A'. Only those who can claim residence on that date will he able to have their names included; but the Bill will assist many electors who discover after publication of the final register that, for whatever reason—their fault or someone else's—they have been left off. I hope that those comments may be for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He addressed a particular comment to me and I hope that those remarks may assist him in that regard.
Clearly, there will need to be procedures to ensure that this new opportunity is not abused. There will therefore be regula-
1020
tions made to provide for proper opportunity for interested electors, including the local political parties, to register any claim or objection to the new names which it is proposed to add. The Government also intend, as the working party recommended, to keep the electoral registration system under review so as to ensure that, as far as possible, it meets objectives of accuracy and clarity at reasonable cost to the taxpayer and local ratepayer.
I hope that with these remarks I have been able to clarify points raised by noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Wells-Pestell. I do not feel that I am going to be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because the Long Title of the Bill is a very difficult matter to change; and there are three very important matters which he raised in his most interesting speech in regard to holidaymakers, to Peers and other disqualifications which will be extremely difficult; but this is, of course, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to consider with his advisers.
When my honourable friend the Minister of State gave on 21st May this year the Government's broad approval to changes in the scheme he could not have expected that the necessary legislation could flow through so quickly. Owing to the good fortune of the ballot for Bills in another place, and the preparedness and advance work done by honourable Members in the House of Commons, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, we are able with unusual speed to mend three limited defects in our electoral system. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether I may put this point to him. It is hardly fair, I appreciate. What is the situation of a person who, on the 15th October, is living, say, in Birmingham and who has completed the household Form 'A' and then for reasons beyond his control, a week or 10 days later moves a hundred miles away? When the list of the new area in which he is living comes out some weeks later, am I to understand that he can then go to the electoral officer and say, "I am now living in this area, although I was not living here on the 15th October"—and, that the electoral

1021
registration officer will have power, if he is satisfied that he lives in that area and is a ratepayer, to put him on the roll?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think it would be difficult to give the noble Lord a sufficiently accurate answer to his important question. I think that the only answer should be that this would be a matter that we could raise between ourselves before the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, conscious as I am of the 20 or more of your Lordships who wish to speak in the important debate following this interesting debate, may I thank all those noble Lords who participated in this debate and who have given unanimous support to the terms of this Bill. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, because he has filled in many of the parts of my opening speech which I had necessarily shortened in the present circumstances. May I join the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Sandys, in making an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby? This Bill is intended to deal quickly with an immediate grievance. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, there are women who object most strongly to being the appendages of their husbands in these voting rights. Some women put the matter far more graphically: they say that they object to being chattels of their military husbands on non-military matters in relation to voting rights. Therefore, my appeal is that at the Committee stage—if I may so presume—there will not be any serious amendments so that the Bill can go back to the other place and can be passed into law as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made a number of interesting suggestions about further reforms necessary in future Representation of the People Acts. May I suggest to him, with great humility, that he and I on another occasion might join together in putting forward another collection of Bills to your Lordships' House, but not to try to introduce anything of the kind that he has suggested to this Bill. It is the duty of the Government and of both Houses of Parliament to make sure that those who are entitled to vote can do so as readily as possible and have the opportunity of exercising
1022
freely their basic civic rights. In my view, this Bill gives those rights back to certain classes of persons.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMMIGRATION RULES: PROPOSALS FOR REVISION
5.32 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY rose to move, That this House deplores the White Paper Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 7750) as racially and sexually discriminatory, incompatible with our international obligations and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this White Paper was debated in another place last week, 17 Conservatives abstained. It is the first and only example of such a rebellion during the lifetime of the present Administration, and a rare event in any period of Tory rule. I hope it is right to assume that, in providing an opportunity to examine these proposals before the rules themselves are laid, the Government were prepared to modify or withdraw any proposals which failed to stand up to criticism. I must say at the outset that, unless we have concrete undertakings on this situation, at the end of today's debate we shall seek to divide the House.
Apart from the honourable Members in another place who defied the Whips, and who represented a very much larger section of opinion within the Tory Party than was represented in the Division lists, informed opinion has been uniformly hostile to these proposals. The Times leader of 15th November used epithets like "objectionable" and "distasteful", and said that in all probability the proposals would violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission for Racial Equality has issued no fewer than four statements attacking the White Paper. The Equal Opportunities Commission, the Sunday Times, Age Concern, the Observer, the British Youth Council, the Guardian, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the National Council for Civil Liberties, and of course every single one of the organisations representing ethnic

1023
minorities themselves, as exemplified by a resolution passed only this weekend by 60 such organisations (a copy of which I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead), have expressed their hostility to these proposals.
Even if their voices were not those of the majority, my Lords, I venture to remind you of the words of Lord Salisbury in 1883 when he said:
"By a free country I do not mean a country where six men can make five men do exactly as they like".
The Home Secretary repeated the old canard last week that tighter controls are necessary:
"… because of the impossibility of advancing the cause of better race relations when public anxieties about further primary immigration are so strong".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/79, col. 264.]
This is false and is diametrically opposed to the advice given to the Government by the Commission for Racial Equality, the body appointed for that purpose.
One cannot appease racialism; one simply intensifies it by making concessions to it. Whenever the screw is tightened, the minorities feel that their security is being further undermined, while everybody must find it a strain on their credulity to believe that the Government are seriously committed to advancing racial equality within the country when they discriminate so blatantly at the ports of entry. When Ministers echo the irrational fears originally articulated by Mr. Enoch Powell, they inadvertently help to spread the virus of racism while, in pandering to the obsession of the extremists over numbers, they allow their attention to be diverted from the practical means of combating racism. By that I mean that while the debate we are now having occupies the centre of the public's attention, the ruthless cuts in the CRE's budget slipped through virtually unnoticed, and the Local Government (Ethnic Grants) Bill, which was lost as a result of the last election, has sunk without trace.
The fact is that the existing Immigration Rules are already extremely harsh, and the way they are applied, in accordance with secret instructions given to immigration officers, leads to the exclusion of many people who ought to be allowed to enter the United Kingdom or remain here.
1024
They also lead to the prolonged detention without recourse to habeas corpus of thousands of people, at the dictates of a single immigration officer. Because the rules are so flagrantly unfair, the Minister has said that he gets well over 1,000 letters a month asking him to use his discretion outside the rules.
I have made an analysis of the cases that I have submitted to Mr. Raison since he took office. I find that out of 81 such cases he has decided, 45 have been given leave to enter or remain or, in the cases of a few visitors, were granted temporary admission, which came to the same thing. This certainly does not give the impression of a system needing to be tightened still further, but of one that ought to be relaxed so that most of these cases would be decided at official level instead of having to go before the Minister. The Minister said, in an interview published in the Guardian on 9th August, that he would like to reduce the powers of MPs and Peers to intercede with him in immigration cases. That could only be done by means of a change in the Law and not in the Rules. In the meanwhile, the changes now proposed are certain to result in an even greater burden of work for Mr. Raison, and even more cases that have to be favourably decided by ministerial discretion outside the rules. According to the Home Secretary, the effect of the changes will be to reduce immigration by a mere 3,000 to 4,000 a year—less than 5 per cent., by the way, of the actual number accepted for settlement in 1978. But, in practice, there are bound to be a great many within the people affected whose admission is justifiable and is brought into effect by the Minister on compassionate grounds.
Turning to the details of the White Paper, the most obnoxious provisions of all are of course those relating to husbands and fiancés, made even more nakedly racist by the concession to women who had at least one parent born in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary concedes that what is now proposed is sexually discriminatory, but amazingly he continues to:
"… reject entirely the accusation that the proposals are racially discriminatory".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/79, col. 256.]
How can he make such a denial, practically in the same breath as he recites the statistics of husbands and fiancés from the New

1025
Commonwealth and Pakistan? It is these men who are the target of the Government's measures, and it would be unconvincing for the Government to pretend otherwise either now or when the matter comes before the European Commission for Human Rights, as it eventually will. But I do not want to go into this part of the rules at any length, because I know that others will be dealing with it later on.
I want to say three things: First, the Government have admitted in another place that what they are doing is not designed to catch the bogus marriage of convenience, which was already dealt with by the changes introduced in March 1977. They have agreed that since those changes only 356 allegedly bogus husbands were refused leave to remain indefinitely at the end of their 12-month probationary period, out of, I calculate, something like 17,000 allowed to remain as properly married over that period. By the way, my Lords, I should have asked how many of those 356 cases were from the Indian sub-continent. I understand, according to Mr. Jim Marshall, M.P., in the debate the other day, it was only 169.
What the Government are now seeking to do, according to Mr. Raison, is to stop young men from entering by marriage when their motives are primarily economic. In their view, any man coming here, from the Indian sub-continent to marry a girl he has never met is ipso facto entering for selfish economic motives. That is, of course, an absurdly simplistic view of the system of arranged marriages. I think that one's attitude to the question of arranged marriages is a litmus test of one's commitment to integration in the sense of the definition given by Mr. Roy Jenkins—
"not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance".
This tolerance is necessary because the customs of one group may be quite different from those of another. The white natives of Britain have no more right to interfere with the marriage systems of the minorities from the Indian sub-Continent than the minorities would have to object to Western dress, which they may well regard as immodest.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I may say so in passing, has obviously forgotten, in the reply that he gave me the other day, that for centuries the Royal Family and
1026
the upper classes in this country indulged in arranged marriages. Anne Mowbray married the younger of the two Princes in the Tower in 1478 when she was four. Bloody Mary was betrothed to the Dauphin in 1518 when she was two. She later married Philip, son of the Emperor Charles V, although the Commons sent a deputation pleading with her that she should not marry a foreigner. The second Queen Mary also married a foreigner—William of Orange—but perhaps we can forget about that because he was patrial, Charles I having been his grandfather. George IV married a foreigner he had never seen, and when the future Queen Caroline arrived for the wedding, his first remark was:
"Harris, I am not well; pray get me a glass of brandy".
Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert was arranged by her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her uncle, King Leopold. Eight of Victoria's children married foreigners chosen by her and she also selected the future Queen, Princess May of Teck. When the heir to whom she was engaged—Prince Eddie—died, Princess May was transferred to his younger brother, the future King George V. That was a process which might have incurred the displeasure of immigration officers if they had had to adjudicate on it at the time.
Mr. Raison wrote in his Daily Telegraph article on 4th December that he had nothing against arranged marriages as such, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What he objects to is the use of these marriages to facilitate the entry of men for purely economic motives. He now identifies these as being men seeking to marry girls born elsewhere, neither of whose parents was born in the United Kingdom. A more far-fetched proposition, so little supported by evidence, can seldom have been presented to your Lordships' House, and I suggest that it should be rejected out of hand. This squalid little measure would certainly have brought us into conflict with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights if we had not, on signing the Covenant, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, pointed out the other day, reserved the whole of our immigration law from its operation, thus shamelessly giving notice of our intention to continue discriminating in our immigration law.

1027
If the Home Secretary denies that racial discrimination exists in our immigration law, then why was that reservation needed and why indeed have Ministers declined to comment on the opinion which has now been expressed by eminent lawyers that the proposals are in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, or to produce the advice which has been given by the law officers? If Britain has to be dragged before the European Commission on Human Rights again, having been found guilty of racial discrimination in three cases very similar to those which are dealt with under these present rules, our reputation in Europe will have been indelibly stained.
These considerations also apply to the provisions regarding elderly parents and grandparents and children between 18 and 21. I notice that Sir Nigel Fisher, commenting on these in the other place, called the proposals "mean"; and Mr. John Hunt described them as "unreasonable and inhumane", pointing out also that they were not within the terms of the Tory Manifesto. Incidentally, both Sir Nigel and Mr. Hunt voted for the Government, bearing out the point that I made earlier, that the opposition within the Government's own ranks was very much larger than one would gather from the Division list.
Previously parents and grandparents could only settle here if it could be shown that they were wholly or mainly dependent on the child they were seeking to join. Now, in addition, it is to be required that they should have no other relatives to whom they can turn in their country of origin and they must have a standard of living substantially below that of their own country. These conditions also have to be met in the case of children between 18 and 21. Of course, nobody at all would qualify, apart from the obvious fact that a person whose standard of living is materially below that of the average in a country like Bangladesh, would die long before the application was considered and that these provisions mirror the "distressed relatives" paragraph of the existing rules, under which it is extremely rare for anyone to be admitted. Incidentally, Mr. Alex Lyon said that in the 30,000 cases he dealt with as a Minister, he could not remember a single one succeeding under the "distressed relatives" provision. Apart from
1028
that, there is this total impossibility of meeting those conditions and at the same time of the parent getting remittances from the sponsor in Britain to satisfy the requirements for dependency.
Mr. Raison did undertake to consider this argument in another place, and it would be very helpful if we could know what conclusions have been reached. Could we also know how many parents and grandparents have been admitted in each of the last few years? I believe that the number must be very tiny—so tiny indeed that it is not even worth identifying separately in the immigration statistics. In any case, as has been pointed out, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of primary immigration.
I now turn to some aspects of the White Paper which have been overshadowed by the discussion of these major changes. With regard to refugees, the convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees is mentioned for the first time—and I welcome this—in paragraph 16. In other references we find only the convention. Then the immigration officer has to decide whether a person's claim to be a refugee indicates that he might fall within that convention and thus refer the matter to the Home Office for decision. The officer is not obliged to inform the applicant of his right to consult the United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service or the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees' representatives, so that we shall continue to have cases like that of Mr. Carlos Reyes, who was held for two days in detention here last week after being expelled directly from a prison in Panama, before anybody knew about it and before the agencies had heard of his plight. And there is no provision, moreover, for an applicant's claim to be a refugee to be referred to an independent body for arbitration when it is refused, as in fact is required by the convention.
The position of students is worsened in several respects. When they move from one course to another they will have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they have not done so with the intention of gratuitously prolonging their studies. In any case, they will normally be refused permission to spend more than four years here on courses meant to last for two; so that, for instance, a student who does

1029
A levels and then goes on to HND would have to be careful not to fail any of these years and have to repeat it, because that would bring him into conflict with these new provisions. Paragraph 89 appears to imply continuous checks on a student's attendance at college; and perhap we could be told how the colleges and universities are expected to supply this information when at the same time their funds are being severely cut. Finally, students' wives will no longer be allowed to work, just at the moment when huge increases in fees make this support absolutely vital to many students. I hope that these are matters which perhaps your Lordships will pursue in further detail tomorrow.
The draft rules are riddled with ambiguities, of which I will mention only one. The phrase "without recourse to public funds", which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, refused to clarify in response to a question which I put the other day, is bound to create unnecessary work for the lawyers while not achieving any conceivable policy objective of the Home Office.
I should like to touch on one final matter as a perfect further example of the petty racism which infects the White Paper—that au pair girls are in future to be limited to those coming from Western Europe, including Malta, Cyprus and Turkey. Mr. Whitelaw said that these changes—and I quote—
"will deal with some widespread abuses"
without giving a shred of evidence to support that allegation.
I put several questions to the Minister following the Statement on the White Paper, to which as yet no answers have been given. I believe that is because there is no answer to the objections that have been raised. The noble Lord said in a letter to me dated 13th August last that in formulating these proposals the Government would
"obviously try to avoid unreasonable discrimination".
In this task, if I may say so, they have been notably unsuccessful. Clearly, they have also failed to honour the undertaking that was given by Mr. Raison on 8th September, that there would be no racial discrimination in the exercise of control, and that the changes to be introduced would enable the ethnic minorities to feel more secure. Without making any noticeable difference to the figures, the Government have
1030
managed to stir up the gravest apprehension, not only among the minorities themselves, but also in the minds of everyone who is concerned to maintain the civilised values which this country had done so much in former days to define and promote. If Parliament does allow the draft rules to be implemented as they stand, I believe it will be a tragic mistake and one of monumental irrelevance to the real problems that we face. We shall have capitulated to the tiny minority of racists in our midst, and we shall have abandoned our responsibility to give a lead to public opinion. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House deplores the White Paper Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 7750) as racially and sexually discriminatory, incompatible with our international obligations and contrary to the principles of natural justice.—(Lord Avebury.)
5.50 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for providing the opportunity for this debate and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate. This, however, is a debate which should not have to take place in a society which prides itself on its tolerance—although there are unfortunate myths among the finer realities. What, then, is it all about? It is about a Government trying to come to terms with the country's racially prejudiced, and coming unstuck. The Conservative Manifesto listed eight points on immigration. The four main ones were: the establishment of a register, a quota, the restriction of elderly and young immigrants, and ending the Labour Government's 1974 concession to husbands and male fiancés. It is to their credit that the Government have recognised the folly of the register and the quota, and have dropped these.
So what is left? The discriminatory, unpleasant and totally reactionary exclusion of husbands and fiancés, unless the woman was born here or, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, since last week's debate in another place, born to a parent who was born here; plus further harsh restrictions on old and young members of the family and the other restrictions which, due to the lack of time and the length of the speaking list, I shall

1031
not go into, but which were also covered by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Yet that same Manifesto stated:
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law, whatever their race, colour or creed".
Further, "to support family life" was declared as one of the Government's fine major tasks. Yet how are these admirable proclamations compatible with these wretched proposals? The very thought of the plight of the already severely restricted parents and grandparents, now condemned to a lonely ebb to their lives and for ever separated from their children, is absolutely heartbreaking. For make no mistake, my Lords, the cruel Catch 22 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, renders their entry almost impossible and, as I understand it, fewer than 1,500 were admitted last year.
In the debate in another place last week, Mr. Raison, the Minister of State, said (at column 363):
"We shall consider the argument that the combination of the dependancy requirement with the standard of living criterion makes it too difficult for parents to come".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/79.]
But what I am asking is how could draft rules get to the stage of a White Paper, without that very basic question having already been considered by the Government? And how could the Minister of State in a debate in another place get up as though that was the first time it had occurred to him? It seems to me quite extraordinary.
Then, to refuse admission to children is contrary to British tradition and is also contrary to the Government's promise "to support family life". The Government's concession that applications for children of 18 to 21 made before 14th November will be treated under the old rules—and this is another thing that has suddenly popped up since the debate—is minor and inadequate. Children should not be cruelly separated from their parents. Just think for a moment, my Lords, how we who are parents would feel if this were happening to us and to our children.
These provisions further restrict those who are already gravely restricted, even too gravely restricted for some of us. Reversing the present position on husbands
1032
and male fiancés is not only outrageously racist but outrageously sexist, in a climate of sex equality created by the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities Commission—and I am glad the chairman of that commission will be speaking later in the debate. The effect on the number of immigrants, whether the number is shrunk or stretched as it emerges from the mathematical mangle, is still very small—set either against total immigration or against Britain's population. There were 356 men who were refused permanent settlement out of 11,600 between March 1977 and March 1979, while 20,000 women came in last year and were accepted for settlement.
It really seems extraordinary, with a small number like this—something like 3 per cent.—that the Government should go to the lengths of doing extraordinary damage to themselves, to race relations and to women's rights, and also to act in a way that I should have thought was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is speaking later and I shall be interested to hear his authoritative view on this), contrary to the Helsinki Agreement, and contrary to any concept of the rule of law that I can think of. Just imagine if a British woman, who does not meet the birth criterion, and an Italian woman want to marry Indian men, the Italian woman would be able to marry and live with her husband in Britain, while the British woman could not.
The 1977 rules comfortably cover all the problems of a marriage of convenience, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that arranged marriages are inseparable from many cultural customs. These were strongly condemned by the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues as contrary to British custom, but I say that it is not the job of a democratic Government to decree how a British citizen should choose his or her spouse. Doubtless this custom will wither away, as it has in other previous immigrant communities, because, even in this country, the arranged marriage is not a unique novelty, which does not survive the exposure of young people to the British way of life. But, meanwhile, this authoritarian decree will create hardship and bitterness for just a few thousand people out of a population of 54 million—a return

1033
absolutely out of proportion to the damage done to our country. The Minister of State, again in another place, conceded that if the couple have not met—to which the Government object—the fiancé can come in as a visitor, if he can persuade the immigration officer that he intends to return to his country of origin when his visit ends. I want to ask the Minister today whether, if the man satisfies the immigration officer, he can then marry without first returning home. If not, then financial and other obstacles would nullify the visit and we should have another Catch 22 situation. I should very much like an answer on this.
The Government argue that this grossly unfair and degrading distinction between men and women has to be made, because of other legal problems tied up with the status of women. I personally do not accept this, because I think that this could have been ironed out in the Sex Discrimination Act. We are promised a British nationality Bill, although not in this Session. Yet there are certainly no sustainable grounds for taking away women's rights in the meantime, because this is what in fact is being done. It is a completely retrogressive step, so far as women are concerned. The proposals are racist, because they are aimed primarily at Asians, though others would also be caught in this sinister web.
Let us look for a moment at the position of refugees who have come to this country. We have a reputation for taking in refugees, and refugees came from Nazi Germany and became British citizens. But a woman who has been settled in this country for many years and now considers herself a British citizen, but who was not born here and whose parents were not—they were born in Germany—would also be caught by this rule. The rule makes a totally new distinction between the rights of male and female citizens, and overturns the generous and compassionate approach to immigration which was adopted by Edward Heath in 1971, in order to help the expelled Ugandan Asians, and by Roy Jenkins in 1974 who dealt with this problem and put back the situation to what it was before these draft rules appeared.
The Government believe that these restrictions will improve race relations. If the Government believe that, they will
1034
believe anything! It is true that the Government have produced some Asian opinion to support their case, but many of us recollect previous immigrations as a result of which those who came early resented late arrivals in case their own established position in British society might be adversely affected. But the approach of the Asian communities indicates that very few Asians adopt this attitude—and, in any case, the Government must be the humane arbiter and not the repository of prejudice, from whatever quarter it may come.
It is interesting that in addition to the list of people and newspapers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the clergy have made a united appeal about these draft rules to the Government: the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Jews and the Methodist Conference.
The real danger to race relations is that these proposals, so minimal in effect, have already fanned the fears and prejudice of white citizens. Anything like this triggers off the racism which people feel but to some extent keep hidden. They believe these proposals will stop a great influx of coloured people into this country, and are reminded of the statement about "swamping" which was made last year by Mrs. Thatcher. There is no question of swamping this country with immigrants. The legislation we have now, without these rules, makes swamping quite impossible. The Government's job is to pacify racial passions, not to inflame them.
Finally, these draft rules are being breached all the time by the Government who are under strong pressure. The Government are therefore giving to themselves bigger and bigger areas of discretion for ministerial decision, and also for immigration officers who will have absolutely impossible burdens of judgment foisted upon them. These officials will be at the receiving end of enormous acrimony and, not being infallible, they will obviously make some mistakes. Not all of these errors of judgment can possibly be picked up by the appeals procedure or routed to Members of Parliament or Peers to take up. A great many people will not even know how to go about trying to get the decision reversed; they will have an absolutely cast iron case but somehow they will slip through the net. The whole thing is a macabre and Monty

1035
Python Flying Circus which cannot possibly work. Under pressure, the door is being opened all the time by the Government.
I am sorry that I am speaking before the Minister. Nevertheless, I am hoping that he will still be able to declare a small change of heart, which is all that is needed to withdraw the intolerable parts of this White Paper. Governments are not infallible. There is still an opportunity for this Government to show the courage of other people's convictions and throw out these illogical, unworkable, unnecessary and nasty proposals which bring disgrace upon the Government and shame to our country.
6.4 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I welcome this debate which I invited when the immigration Statement was made in your Lordships' House on 14th November because I believe that it will clarify points upon which there is misunderstanding. Incidentally, it gives us, into the bargain, the opportunity to hear for the first time the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford who is to follow me.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not mind me saying that the more I listened to him the more I felt that my regard for his knowledge and for his genuine concern over these matters is exceeded only by my total disagreement with almost everything which he had to say. For what is the noble Lord's objective in raising the debate this evening? It is to deplore, totally, a White Paper which has been published, based upon the simple belief that this country really cannot accept an indefinite commitment to continuing primary immigration. That is not a concept which is confined to the views of the present Government. It is in accord with a recommendation of the all-party Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations which reported in another place only last year.
"The Government should make it unequivocally clear"
the Members of the Select Committee said—
"that in the foreseeable future there will be no further major primary immigration and that such immigration will only be allowed in exceptional individual circumstances".
Because they were the sort of people who have their feet firmly planted upon the
1036
ground, the Members of the Select Committee explained that by the phrase "primary immigration" they meant people entering the United Kingdom independently to establish themselves and their families here and that the reason for their recommendation was the economic and employment prospects of this country.
Of course there remain throughout the world very many people who have a continuing claim to come to this country. Over the years, the United Kingdom has provided a safe home for refugees, the tragedy of the Vietnamese refugees being the latest example. And the White Paper, which apparently the noble Lord deplores in its entirety, is going to make much clearer the precedence of a claim for refuge or asylum in the United Kingdom over other parts of the immigration rules. We shall continue to accept certain United Kingdom passport holders under the special voucher scheme. Then there are the wives and children who have the absolute right to join men who are settled here. But outside these categories, immigration must be strictly confined to circumstances of the most urgent need.
When noble Lords have the opportunity may I invite them to look at page 1 of the previous Government's White Paper on immigration which was published only last year, for your Lordships will there see that what I have just said does not contradict the general intention of the previous Government. What I think it is fair to say is that the difference of view between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government stems from what should be done about the clear evidence that the present rules are being exploited by men using marriage as a means of securing entry into the United Kingdom. Because neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said so, I feel that I have to say to your Lordships that we know that there are cases in which men overseas openly admit that they are looking for a girl in the United Kingdom to marry, solely in order to come and settle here themselves.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way, since he mentioned me in connection with this point. The 1977 rules were drafted in order to deal with this very point. Now people have to have been married and appear to have stayed together in a per-

1037
manent marriage for at least 12 months. Therefore, the 1977 rules deal with exactly the point which the Minister is making. He does not need these rules.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, may I say that as I understand them the 1977 rules dealt with what the Government, in their rules, called "the marriage of convenience"—people who did not intend that their marriage should subsist. They did not necessarily deal with marriages which are contracted with one thought in mind—that is, for the man, by hook or by crook, to get into the United Kingdom. As I was saying to your Lordships—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords—
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. I have listened fairly quietly to your Lordships. I shall certainly give way to the noble Lord, but may I remind him that both he and, if the House will allow me, I also will have another chance to speak.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I was going to say that the evidence has never been produced. I was in Bombay and Delhi at the beginning of 1978 and I was given the facility of sitting in on interviews at the High Commission and Deputy High Commission, and I heard a number of would-be husbands interviewed. They were all pressed intensely by the entry certificate officers to say that their motives for coming to the United Kingdom were entirely economic, but unanimously they denied this. So I have not the faintest idea where the noble Lord gets his evidence from.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I know the noble Lord well, and I know that he is absolutely genuine and very knowledgeable in these matters. This is an absolutely fair point for the noble Lord to make, and it is absolutely wrong. Within the last month my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Raison, has visited the Indian sub-Continent, and I am doing no more than repeating the view which he has given on the Floor of the House of Commons when I say to this House that we know that there are cases in which men overseas openly admit that they are looking for a
1038
girl to marry in the United Kingdom in order to be able to come to live here. It is clear from letters which the Home Office receive and which entry clearance officers abroad receive, that girls who are living here are being obliged to contract marriages with men whom they do not want to marry. I am saying to the House that I believe this cannot be right, but under the present rules—if I may correct the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—there is very little that can be done about it.
Noble Lords opposite are asking me for statistics. Very well; let me move on. This is a difficult problem. The noble Baroness is saying that it was solved by the previous Government, and I am saying that it was not. The problem here is illustrated by the fact that over the last 10 years the views of many people have changed, first one way and then another, and not least the views of the party opposite. In 1969 the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Home Secretary, removed the right of entry of Commonwealth husbands and fiancés. Five years later, in 1974, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, reversed that ban; and finally as the noble Baroness has said, in March 1977 the previous Government changed the rules again in order to prevent entry where it can be discerned that there is no real intention that the parties to a marriage intend to live together permanently as man and wife. But while these differences in view have been occurring over the last 10 years there is absolute certainty about what has been happening.
To date, during the 12 months up to the middle of this year, which is the date for which I have the figures, 5,600 husbands from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan were accepted here for settlement. That compares with just 200 husbands coming to join wives already settled here in 1973. If your Lordships want a comparison in male fiancés wanting to come here, the increase is even more marked.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has previously in your Lordships' House suggested that these increases simply represent a pent-up demand from those years before 1974 when it was not open to men to come here and settle by having a claim to marriage. But the evidence does not support that argument. There is a continuing upward demand in the number

1039
of applications and no evidence of a peak shortly after 1974 with a subsequent downturn. That is why the draft new rules provide that where there is reason to believe that immigration is the primary objective of the marriage that will be sufficient reason to refuse an entry clearance.
Baroness BIRK: But, my Lords—
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, perhaps if the noble Baroness would like to read the rules, she will see. In addition we repeat the Labour Government's rule that where there is no intention of there being a genuine married life, entry should also be refused—and we add what I do not think is an unnatural requirement, that the couple to a marriage should have met. However, even these changes can be circumvented by people who are determined to conceal the true reasons for a marriage, and that is the reason why the Government have been obliged to confine the right of entry to husbands and fiancés of women who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by birth or who have a parent born here.
I should like to remind the House of what it is that we are talking about. We are not talking about the right of women to come into this country; we are talking about the amount of latitude which the British Government should give to men, who in many cases are undoubtedly using marriage or proposed marriage as a calculated method of gaining entry. The reason why these draft rules apply to men in this respect is not only because obviously this is the immediate problem with which we have to deal, but also because of the law on nationality, which I do not think either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness mentioned.
As the law stands, a woman may enter and acquire her husband's nationality if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies, and from her husband a woman may acquire the right of abode. A man cannot do that. Also, wives and children of Commonwealth citizens who were here before 1st January 1973 remain as free to come and go as they were before the passing of the 1971 Act.
In these circumstances, the position of women under immigration legislation is wholly different from—and I am glad it is
1040
more favourable than—the position of men. I hope therefore that the Opposition will not pursue the line taken by the noble Baroness, that there is a charge here of sex discrimination, because both the previous Government and the present Government have found themselves in very much the same boat over this question. Indeed, I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not see fit to mention in terms which the House could easily understand, that when, two years ago, the Labour Government changed the rules they did so by having exactly the same method of approach as the present Government are having; namely, by making the rules applicable to a man who wishes to come into this country to marry. The fact of the matter is that we desperately need a new law on nationality and the Government are committed to introducing such legislation which, may I say to your Lordships this evening, my right honourable friend intends to precede with a White Paper during the coming year.
I should like to make clear just two points where my right honourable friend has altered his original proposals in order to meet views which have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said—and in my view quite rightly—that he wants to know where changes are to be made in the propoals which have been put forward. The first change which my right honourable friend is ready to make and which he feels it is quite right to make, is that if Parliament agrees there will be an absolute right for a husband to join a wife within the terms of the rules. This will be firmly written into the rules. Also, it was my right honourable friend's intention, in the case if a girl is born abroad simply because her parents happen to be out of the country at the time of her birth, that that girl should be entitled subsequently to be joined by her husband or her fiancé in the United Kingdom in the same way as if she had been born here. When I was repeating the Statement on 14th November in your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, expressed the view that it would be desirable for this intention to be written into the rules and this advice my right honourable friend accepts.
With the leave of the House, I will try to reply to speeches made in this debate at the end of the debate, so perhaps I may refer only to all the other changes made in the

1041
White Paper by reference to three of the main areas of change. First, we are making new provisions for the entry of dependants. Our guiding principle has been that where there is no compassionate reason a relative really cannot expect as of right to be admitted here, given that we must set limits to our immigration commitments. Despite the fact that the noble Baroness referred to the heartbreak which can occur when relatives are divided from their families, the requirement that a relative should be dependent upon a family which is over here has already been written into the rules under the previous Government, something apparently which the noble Baroness just happened to forget. Here again, however, a point has been raised which we will certainly look at very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the point that it is possible that this requirement, the dependency requirement, together with the criterion that dependent relatives should be suffering a standard of living below that of their own country may make it very difficult for parents and grandparents in receipt of help from their families over here to prove that they actually need to come to the United Kingdom. I repeat the assurance that was given in the other place that my right honourable friend is considering this argument.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am sure the Minister did not mean to be unfair, but I think he was being a little unfair in saying that I did not draw attention to that. I did say that the restrictions before these rules were already very hard, harder than many of us would have liked to see, but the added criterion of living at a standard of living lower than they would have or could have over here makes it even more difficult. This is what creates the Catch 22 position. I entirely accepted that the other criteria were the same, but now something else is added which makes it even more difficult. In fact I read out what Mr. Raison had said in another place in order to make the point that this should have been thought out before. It was not a case of not referring to this matter; I did refer to it.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise genuinely and unreservedly to
1042
the noble Baroness for misrepresenting her. I am sure that I must have misrepresented her and I am extremely sorry. With regard to the point the noble Baroness is putting to me, which is the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put, as I have said, this is a matter which my right honourable friend is looking at very seriously.
My Lords, I said that I would refer to the three main areas which remain. The second area is to do with overstayers. Here we feel that firmer rules are needed to prevent those who seek to turn a temporary visit into permanent residence. I am only too happy to record that the great majority of visitors and students are absolutely genuine and we welcome them here. Yet some of your Lordships have expressed concern to me outside the House that it may be almost impossible to trace passengers who say they are coming for a temporary purpose and then overstay.
Clearly this is a matter which worried the previous Government, because they initiated an overstayers survey, which my right honourable friend referred to in another place last week. The long and the short of it is that the survey ran into very great difficulties. It was not found possible for the survey to match the huge number of landing and embarkation cards, and the survey was not able to estimate with any accuracy the number of people who deliberately overstayed. But computer support, which was announced in the previous Government's White Paper, for the checking of departures is soon to be in use, and with that technical facility the changes that we are proposing in the rules will, I think, contribute in a fair way towards dealing with this problem of overstaying. In brief, we propose that there shall be reasonable limits set to the time for which a visitor may stay. Nor would students be able to remain perpetually for short courses, although, if I may take up the point from the noble Lord's speech, a student who is progressing in a logical and academic way from one course to another has nothing to fear from these rules.
Tighter requirements would be introduced to ensure that those admitted to the country for a temporary purpose do not become a charge on public funds. At the same time, those who enter temporarily

1043
and then deliberately overstay would find it more difficult to spin out their stay for further applications to the Home Office for leave to remain to be made. Also when a person who has remained in breach of our immigration laws reappears, as they do sometimes, at a port of entry the immigration officer would be specifically empowered to have regard to his or her immigration history in deciding whether or not to grant leave to enter. These changes are simply designed to combat exploitation. They would honestly bear only upon those who seek to manipulate our system of immigration control, and they would not affect the genuine applicant who has good reason to come here but does not intend to settle permanently.
My Lords, if I may just refer briefly to the third area, it is the position of those who come here to work. In saying that I am not referring to students or to young holidaymakers from the Commonwealth whom many of your Lordships may very well know when they come and work here. I am referring to those who wish to come to work on a longer term basis and must hold a permit issued in advance after application by the employer. The Department of Employment has recently issued stricter criteria for the issue of permits. In addition, the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recommended last year that the categories of people who can come here without permits should be reviewed, and this we have also done and introduced an entry clearance requirement for some of them; because I have to say that, not infrequently, people entering temporarily then try to stay permanently by remaining for work or try setting up in business. We are simply saying that it is the responsibility of the applicant to reveal whether the real objective is to remain permanently and, if that is the case, to get entry clearance accordingly.
So, my Lords, I return to the Motion of the noble Lord. After more than six years, the immigration rules need revision. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to greater difficulties which will be made for immigration officers. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say that, because sheer weight of numbers is tremendous. Last year there were some 5½, million non-EEC visitors to these shores. I think what is necessary is to have more workable
1044
instructions for the officers in our hard-pressed immigration service, and this I believe the new rules will provide.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the immigration rules do not make any difference to the number of visitors who come here. Surely the noble Lord is not trying to discourage tourism as well as everything else.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, perhaps we are getting a little tired and I did not make myself clear. I was trying to explain to the House that immigration officers are working under considerable strain. I gave the example of the very large number of visitors who come to these shores to show the extent of the number of people who pass through our ports of entry every year. I was going on to explain that in my view the rules we are putting forward in the White Paper will provide easier and more workable rules. The noble Lord does not agree with me. When the noble Lord speaks again he can explain to the House why that is so.
In addition to that, my right honourable friend has shown, as I like to think I have shown in this debate, that he is very ready to listen to the opinions expressed. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have none of this. The White Paper, in the noble Lord's view, must be done away with lock, stock and barrel, as being contrary to natural justice. I must say I find that a little hard, and I certainly find the noble Lord's argument a little hard to follow. Decisions will continue to be taken, as now, only after careful consideration and the rights of appeal laid down by statute will continue. A person will still be able to appeal to the independent appellate authorities against refusal of entry clearance, refusal of leave to enter, refusal or variation of extension of stay and refusal of settlement.
I fail to see that the noble Lord has even begun to make out a case that our immigration control violates the principles of natural justice. On the contrary, suggest that, as the Select Committee pointed out only a year ago, there are sensible economic and employment grounds why further immigration should be only for those who have a strong and genuine claim to come here. I believe

1045
that the noble Lord miscalculates if he ignores the Select Committee's point of view, and I believe that the noble Lord misunderstands that many people in this country are worried about the effects of continuing levels of immigration.
The Government are deeply and firmly committed to good race relations. It cannot be conducive to good community relations that there should be concern that, despite assurances to the contrary, primary immigration continues and could increase in coming years. It is in the hope of achieving a united and stable society that the Government have approached this problem by putting forward the proposals which are in the White Paper. I ask your Lordships to agree that our future should rest with that approach, and to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which is before your Lordships' House today.
6.31 p.m.
The BISHOP of BRADFORD: My Lords, I owe your Lordships' House an apology. I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House for four years, but this is the first time that I have spoken. My reason for speaking tonight is that I have, for just over seven years, been a Bishop in a multiracial situation. I reckon myself to be inhibited by the traditions of a maiden speech from scoring some of the points regarding racism and sexism that seem to be implied in the White Paper. Indeed, if I were not inhibited I would not want to make them. I would rather try to look at what seems to me to be positive steps forward that need to be taken and which I regard these rules as not helping to be taken.
In the metropolitan district of the City of Bradford one person in 10 comes of post-war immigrant stock—that is, about 63,000 people. Of those, about 90 per cent. come from the Indian sub-continent and of those the great majority from Pakistan. I want to consider some of the positive developments which have taken place in Bradford or in the whole area around the West Riding, which give reason to believe that the path to right race relations needs more positive action than the restrictions that either Race Relations Acts or immigration Rules provide.
I have heard young people to whom I have been talking consider the institution of marriage and argue that it has so
1046
many pitfalls that they could not possibly embark upon it. I have argued, as I think many people would do, that they should take courage and look at the potential displayed in a happy marriage rather than the disasters of unhappy ones. The same principle ought to apply when we look at race relations. We must look at areas where there is some harmony being achieved rather than at those where blatant disharmony is so notorious. I do not for one moment underestimate the incipient danger in my own city. However, I ask your Lordships to consider how seldom we have read in the national Press of flagrant breaches of racial harmony in my See city and for that matter in some other places—we almost forget that they are multi-racial towns—and to reflect that in these matters good news is seldom reported. Therefore, I should like to trace briefly why it seems to me the history of race relations in the West Riding has been, in the main, good, and what efforts are proving most successful in sustaining it.
Lest anyone should be under the illusion that I am starry-eyed about Yorkshire, let me tell your Lordships what ought to be obvious—namely, that I am not a Yorkshireman. I am regarded by them as coming from the deep South—where most people are daft anyhow—that is, from Kent and, as a Man of Kent, I regard myself still as a missionary to the rude North.
Nevertheless, historically, the West Riding has been both realistic and tolerant in this matter. Its indigenous Yorkshire population has assimilated wave after wave of immigrants from many places; has accommodated them without in any way losing its decisive Yorkshireness; and, in many cases, has found the accommodation to work to the advantage of both the host population and the newcomers. The Irish came first. Then came the Italians, the Germans, the Latvians, the Lithuanians the Byelorussians, the Ukrainians, the Poles and the Hungarians—you name them, we have had them! It is surprising how far these Mid and East Europeans have consciously retained their own culture within their own families while at the same time contributing to the wellbeing of the commerce and welfare of the city.
Therefore, the Asians are but the latest instalment in a long history of immigration, Their arrival was, in the first place,

1047
made easier by the fact that their labour was invited by the textile industry. But, the size of the immigration from Asia has been far larger than that from any other continent. The difference of colour made their presence more marked. If they seek to retain their own culture they are doing no more than has happened in the case of entrants from Mid and Eastern Europe. I find that the hostility which is alleged only exists in great degree in the richer suburbs where few Asians are to be found. It is certainly much more evident there than in the decaying inner city where so many of them live.
I was once dining with a general who said to me, "My children have no race problem whatsoever. I have been all over the world in my job and they have grown up all over the world. It never occurs to them that colour has anything to do with people—there are nice people and nasty people. That is the way that they have grown up and the way that they have lived together in different places". I was reminded of those remarks last Friday when I was giving away prizes in a large comprehensive school which bore all the marks of a multi-racial society. As your Lordships know, at prize-givings children are clapped as they receive their prizes. It is always very easy to see who are the popular boys and girls. The popularity marked by the amount of clapping bore no relation whatsoever to the colour of those children coming up for their prizes. Some were cheered and some were not, but colour had nothing to do with it. Indeed, there was one West Indian boy who contrived to leave me too soon after he had received a prize and had to go right round the room to come and receive the rest of his prize. That was greeted with the type of mirth that showed that he was a popular boy in the school.
I say all this because it seems to me that the criterion by which we ought to judge any action in respect of race relations is how far it results in our treating people as human beings and how far it does the reverse. I have paid visits to many of the schools in my city and I find, particularly in the first schools and middle schools, that colour is no problem. There are problems as regards English language teaching but one can see them playing cricket and football together without any difficulty whatsoever. Colleges of higher
1048
education in the district provide various courses which are designed to promote understanding between people of different races and to facilitate the teenager of immigrant stock in his transition from school to work. It is at that point where many of the difficulties are liable to arise. The home tutoring system is very widely used and under it English women go to Asian homes and attempt to teach Asian women English—many of whom have arrived never having seen a bus before. One such woman told me, "I don't know that I have taught them much English, but we have made friends".
I do not want to bore noble Lords with a list of things. The point I want to make is that behind all the activities that really matter must be this person-to-person contact. Harmonious race relations may need the legislative framework that is implied by race relations Acts and immigrant rules, but its seeds of succeess will spring only from person-to-person contact. Where hostility is expressed by white people, it is those who have the experience of a valued friendship with a coloured family who can do more to dispel the position than any legislative process.
I recognise that what I have outlined may well not be peculiar to Bradford and that the Government-sponsored link scheme is probably doing much more good than any legislation. I hope that this will continue. For central Government—any central Government—are suspect among Pakistanis; after all, their experience in their own country is not calculated to encourage otherwise. It is greatly to be desired that those in authority will underline, both in season and out of season, their commitment to a multiracial society, or else we shall be in trouble.
I have spoken much about the Asians, not only because I know so many of them but also because it is upon them that the provisions of the White Paper would fall most heavily. I shall not rehearse debating points, but I shall make two observations of fact. Nearly all the Pakistanis I know are Moslems. That does not mean to say that they all have the same ideas, or that they all have the same view of arranged marriages. Some of them are of Kenyan or Ugandan Asian descent and their attitude may well vary from those who come from a large city like Karachi or,

1049
indeed, from those—and this is true of most of them—who come from a remote rural province in Pakistan. In any case, Moslems themselves differ. It is not only the Christians who have sects; there are nearly as many Islam sects as Geoffrey Boycott has scored centuries.
We are told that the practice of allowing husbands and fiancés into this country has been abused. I still find this very vague. In Bradford we find that the average length of time before an application by a husband or fiancé to emigrate here is granted is as follows: from India it takes at least two years; from Pakistan it takes two and a half years, and from Bangladesh it takes three years. I find what is going on in the British High Commissions odd, if there is no sorting out in that period. As this legislation is not intended—praise be—to be retrospective and as the numbers involved are so few, it appears that The Times newspaper was right to say what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did not say, and to use the mixed metaphor that the restriction was a smoke-screen to crack a nut.
Be that as it may, I would only make the inference that, although general legislation may be necessary to provide the framework for harmonious race relations, a Government do ill to make legislation too particular. They do ill because it infringes on the legitimate cultural freedom of other races—those cultural ways of life which are not understood by a superficial reading. They do ill when the imposition of a particular restriction is the thin end of an intolerable wedge. The appeasement of potential racialism can well lead to the particular restrictions of the thick edge found in certain repressive régimes. In Soviet Russia, for example, we see the reverse: husbands forbidden to emigrate to join their wives or fiancées elsewhere. When we read that we do not stop to inquire whether such desired unions are arranged or are unions of romantic love. We, rightly, give the prohibition a blanket disapproval—all of us would.
I have spoken of what is happening where I live. In doing so, I have quite probably painted too rosy a picture. After seven years, I believe that notwithstanding the efforts that have been made, we are in a greater state of explosive danger than we were. This is not because numbers have increased, but because we are now in
1050
a state where many of those of immigrant stock are of the third generation. They know no other country but ours, which is also theirs. They need encouragement to believe that in it they are not regarded as second-class citizens. Whether or not these rules become the rule, the effect in their minds has been to make most of the Asians I know believe that they are second-class citizens. That can be righted. I wonder to what extent the Government make sufficient use of consultation with those, whether white or coloured, men and women of great calibre who devote their lives, their thoughts and their efforts to understanding the situation as it really is at a level where lives are really lived.
I should like to repeat two points. First, at the risk of being monotonous, harmonious race relations only spring organically from person-to-person contact. That may seem simplistic, yet even in so great an area of concern, it is a powerful lever which in the end operates to influence the whole. For when there is such contact men and women are judged, not on their colour or on their culture, but on their worth as human beings. That is the judgment we should all be free to make. Secondly, a Government—any Government—have a duty to create and to foster conditions in which incipient goodwill may be released. They do that first by making their commitment crystal clear.
6.49 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, it is a very real pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who made a magnificent and, I believe, non-controversial maiden speech. It was non-controversial because virtually everything that the right reverend Prelate said was right. I hope that we shall not have to wait another four years before we hear him speak, and certainly not another four years on this subject.
I should like to declare an interest in this debate, for I am vice-president of the Gravesend Community Relations Council; my wife is the chairman of that council. Together with Sir Peter Kirk, the former Conservative Member of Parliament, whose attitudes on race relations were impeccable, and Jack Barnett, the Liberal candidate, we were responsible for setting up the first community relations council in Gravesend in the early 1960s.The

1051
Council has had its difficulties, but I believe that in Gravesend we have as good, if not better, race relations and racial harmony than anywhere else in the country. I think the introduction of these new rules sets race relations back. It makes me sad to see the Government doing it. They are falling into the trap of bowing to the bar-room gossips, and to the talk of "swamping", and I think they are going to do race relations in this country a great deal of harm.
My noble friend Lady Birk on the Front Bench said that she was glad to see that the Conservative Government had dropped the quota and the register. I do not think that they have done that absolutely out of the goodness of their hearts. My view is that it is too expensive at the present time for them to do it. That is the problem they face. Every time there is a nibble away on race relations, or curbs on immigration, the same people come back again and again "We want another piece. We want another piece". This Government are wrong, and I am sad that they have fallen for it.
In virtually every speech I make in this House I produce something from the Conservative Manifesto. So far, in all the legislation that this Government have introduced, in all of their views—notwithstanding the fact that they tell me that my party is the party of restriction—they are moving and restricting in every area, whether it be trade unionists or British citizens living in this country who do not happen to have the same colour of skin as most of the rest of us. They have the audacity in that Manifesto to talk about the rights of people legally settled here and say that we are all equal before the law, and then on the following page we come to, "Helping the family". That really is cant and hypocrisy. What families are they helping? Are they helping the families of migrants settled here, and settled here for many years, by restricting the rights of their parents or grandparents to come and spend the remaining years of their lives with them without any cost to the state?
People who are speaking against this are not a bunch of Left-Wing "nutters" and do-gooders. Let us have a look at some of the criticisms levelled against the immigration rules.
1052
"Wholly illegal and quite unnecessarily restrictive … Should be opposed by anyone with any sense of decency and fairness",
said the Financial Times.
"Tainted by discrimination … Insensitive to long-held cultural traditions … Contrary to the whole intention of the Race Relations Act",
said the Commission for Racial Equality.
"A shabby ploy … A nightmare apparatus riddled with absurdities",
said the Evening News.
"Throughout all of it, it must be apparent that the Government's only purpose is to remove a right at present enjoyed by black women settled here. This would clearly be discriminatory. If the rules as laid before Parliament are of this character, we shall oppose them vigorously",
said the Bishop of Truro, Chairman of the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility.
"Two different definitions of the family running through the White Paper … For non-EEC nationals the proposals impose further harsh restrictions on almost every category of dependant",
said the Catholic Commission for Racial Justice. This is the level of the criticism now arising.
What is it that the Tory Party have suddenly found against arranged marriages? What worries the Sikh community, the people I know in Gravesend, is that they are now being told by the Conservative Government that arranged marriages are just a ploy to get past the laws on immigration. We cannot get any figures. Where are the figures? On Wednesday, 14th November, when the Immigration Rules were being introduced, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at column 1272:
"It is for that reason, and because we are certain that many of these partnerships are arranged to the detriment of girls living in this country, that we felt it right to make the Statement to your Lordships today".
Where are the figures? We have not had a figure. We already have rules that deal with abuses of arranged marriages that are marriages of convenience.
Where are the figures? The Government were pressed in the Commons. They have been pressed by everybody. Where are the figures that say that this is being abused, that people are flooding in, that we are being swamped by men coming to marry women in this country? Mrs. Thatcher uses these words like "swamped", and we do not even know the number of people that this is going to affect. Is it 2,000? Is it the 3,000 that Mr. Merlyn Rees, the

1053
former Home Secretary, suggests, or the 3,000 to 4,000 suggested by the present Government? We have not had a figure to substantiate any of it. This is what people are concerned about—people have lived in this country, worked in this country, paid their taxes and been allowed to vote and have all the rights of a citizen, and now there is this implied criticism of the whole of their cultural and religious beliefs on the question of arranged marriages.
The Sikh community, which is the ethnic minority I know more about than any other, cherishes the honour of its families and the integrity of their marriages. I suggest that the divorce rate within the Sikh community, or within groups that have arranged marriages, is a little lower than the divorce rate of the indigenous people in this country. They are very concerned about it, and so are many more people.
The custom of arranged marriages is dying out, but is it for us as a people to say to these people, "You have got to abolish a custom that you have had for hundreds of years and that is part of your culture and your religion, because we think you are using that to abuse the immigration laws"? It is not for us to say that. We cannot act as God in these matters. It is for the people to decide that in those ethnic groups. Our society in Britain is always priding itself that it has the sense and thought of family. But there are large numbers of old people's homes in this country and people like to get their old people into them, and families like to get rid of old mothers and fathers because they are a bit of a nuisance. In ethnic minorities—at least among the Sikhs I know—they do not want to do that. They want to care for their old people. They want their old people to have a decent standard of living, which many of them have not had during their years in the Indian sub-continent.
They have strong and durable family relationships, and you cannot judge them by the standards that the Government are trying to apply. How can you regard parents or grandparents who are over 65 as primary immigrants? How can you believe that this is a new generation of primary immigrants coming over here and going to set up huge families? It is unbelievable, but it is the view that the
1054
Government are taking. How can they say, "If you have a relative in the country of origin, go and stay with them"? What sort of relative? A cousin twice removed? A sister? Perhaps a brother who is even older than you are? What relative?
Let me come back to my noble friend's point about Catch 22—the substantially lower standard of living. Which person from the High Commisson is going to go to the farms in the Punjab and examine how many acres of land a person has, or to see whether they are just tilling a small plot of land which they have themselves? It disturbs me, because this country prides itself on the question of family.
A statement was recently made after the Tory Manifesto was published at the end of April this year. It was not a statement issued by a bunch of Left-Wing "nutters", although some people might think they are, but I do not. In that statement it said that
"existing legislation already strikes at the root of the family life of our coloured brethren—demand for further legislation can only in the end degrade the society which requires and enacts it even more than it does its victims",
and that
"Christians in our country have all too often taken refuge in pious platitudes and plausible evasions; their commitment to the proclamation of the Gospel as it affects immigration and race relations has all too often been secondary to their political affiliations. We therefore urge Christians, and all men or goodwill, to support the endeavours of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and other organisations seeking to oppose and mitigate the cruel consequences of such un-Christian and inhuman legislation".
That was signed by the Bishops of Birmingham, Bristol, Chelmsford, Litchfield and Liverpool, by the Archbishop of Mauritius, by the Bishops of Rippon and Saint Albans, by the Assistant Bishop of London, by the Bishops of Lewes, Sherbourne and Stepney and by various other Church dignitaries. I believe that is a damning condemnation of this Government's attitude and policies. I conclude with a quotation:
"A law which is pointless, harmless, divisive and directed against a specific section of society is inherently repulsive and cannot deserve to find a place on the statute book of a free society".
That was said over 200 years ago by Edmund Burke. It was true then. It is true now.
7.2 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords,I do not believe anyone can approach this subject without considering with great gravity the consequences and effects of everything one says. Nor do I believe that anyone disputes for a moment—as the right reverend Prelate said in a most distinguished maiden speech—that it was the size of the primary immigration in the 1950s and up to 1962 that did affect British society, did cause concern at the effect on the social conditions in our overcrowded island, and did create anxiety on the consequences to housing, education and social security.
It was obvious by 1962 that there was need to have control. But I recollect in another place the fierce opposition from Members of the Labour and Liberal Parties at the thought of any control whatever on immigration into the United Kingdom. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition, Hugh Gaitskell—which was unusual for a Leader of the Opposition—going so far as leading in the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, so passionately and deeply and most genuinely, did he believe in the wickedness of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden was then introducing.
That was the genuine feeling at that time, but it was undoubtedly the ordinary feeling of most people that there had to be some control; and if there has to be control then there has to be some regulation. I believe that the core of this problem rests in the absence of any separate citizenship, a matter which was referred to in the speech of my noble friend Lord Belstead; it is the absence of any separate citizenship which has really created the problems for this country, for the citizen of the United Kingdom is a person unknown to United Kingdom law.
Since 1914, legislation of the United Kingdom dealing with nationality was based on the concept of a common British nationality of all subjects of the Crown throughout the Commonwealth and Empire, and it had grown from and was perpetuated by the common law doctrine of allegiance to the Sovereign. But by 1948 there had emerged the independent countries of the Commonwealth, and the British Nationality Act
1056
1948 gave effect to the principle that each self-governing country in the Commonwealth—and oddly, considering the Statement we heard today, that included Southern Rhodesia at that time—should by its own legislation determine who are its citizens. Thus, after 1948 the status of a British subject was derivative because it was acquired only through the possession of local status citizenship.
But with the progress to independence of so many nations, there developed the practice of nations within the Commonwealth becoming republics, with the Sovereign merely head of the Commonwealth, and therefore the basic concept of nationality based upon allegiance to the Sovereign faded away. But there remained, and still remains—all of us here in this House know—the status of "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"; and that is an unreal situation. It is an unreal situation if it really could afford, as it would unless controls were imposed, legal right to millions—some people put it at 600 million and others put it as high as 950 million—to come and reside in this over-populated island. Therefore, the imposition of some control, having regard to the British Nationality Act 1948, was essential, but of course once you impose control then inevitably you get incidents of evasion.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell me how he arrives at the figure of 600 million or 900 million?
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, at that time I believe those were the figures suggested. The figure was put at two different scales.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: If the noble and learned Lord is talking about 1962, my Lords, then that could not have been so even then because India and Pakistan were already independent.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: But they still had the right of entry, my Lords, and that is what I have been trying to explain. We have a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: But they were not colonies.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL:—and citizenship was derived from the status given by the independent nation. That was the position at that time and therefore, as I said, control had to be imposed, and then we got, and obviously got, evasion. The evasion over the years—this is accepted and I do not think anyone would dispute it—has on occasions been organised, elaborate and ingenious. It was not the immigrants who were getting money out of it but those people who were organising it, and finance of a very considerable extent has been involved, with secret routes established in this human traffic, people being passed from country to country; the smuggling in of people.
That was an incident of the immediate past and with it went the alternatives of disguise, trickery and impersonation. As usual, therefore, once you have the imposing of control, the lot of the legitimate immigrant is necessarily affected by the need for preventive measures to thwart the illegitimate cheat. And it seems to me from the impression I have gained over the past 15 years that there is constant and massive pressure. That is a fact, and it was for that reason that the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Callaghan, introduced his measures in 1969; and they were dealing, as he said, with only about 2,000 people, but he thought it necessary to deal with them, and so he introduced his measures. And it was necessary to introduce the measures of 1971 and the rules of 1973, because to permit evasion is unacceptable to all people residing in the United Kingdom and is unfair to legitimate immigrants.
The fact that these new rules, as I understand them, affect only some 3,000 to 4,000 people per annum is, in my submission, just as necessary as it was when Mr. Callaghan introduced his measures in 1969. And in regard to what Lord Belstead said—that there is no doubt that marriage is used as a method of obtaining entry, and he quoted the figure of 200, in 1973, up to nearly 6,000, in October 1979, of husbands and fiancés in sub-continent queues—if that is so, then it is right for an Administration to make sure that that evasion is stopped.
I want to turn to the suggestion that these new rules are a breach of our international obligations—and I suppose that that is particularly referring to Article
1058
8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the guarantee of the right to marry and the guarantee of the respecting of family life. The question arises as to whether as a consequence a person ought to be regarded as being entitled as of right to come to the United Kingdom, whenever he or she wishes to marry a person already here. I believe that in looking at this matter one has to look at the whole background. There is no right under the convention, nor under the jurisprudence, to enter, or remain in, another country. The jurisprudence does not confer that right. There is the Fourth Protocol, but to that the United Kingdom is not a party. Certainly this has not been considered by the Court. The Commission has published decisions in individual cases on Article 8 in respect of obstacles to enjoying family life in another country. But the right to respect for family life does not, in itself, carry with it a right to enter, or to reside in, a particular country. With a background of no right to enter it is very far from obvious—though I have read, and it has been said, that there has been here quite clearly a breach of the European Convention—that to keep out fiancés could be a breach of Article 8.
I was the counsel for the Government in the case of the East African Asians, which arose out of the independence in Uganda, or East Africa. The Commission's opinion there has never been published, so we are left with the position that it was not endorsed by the Committee of Ministers, which has the function to make the actual decisions. The Commission's report therefore is the result of its fact-finding role, its expression of its opinion; and the Ministers certainly made no actual decision.
There is no obligation on a State to enable a person to marry, and recent opinions at Strasbourg say that it is no breach of the convention if in particular circumstances a person has to leave the country in order to marry the person of his choice. The Belgian languages case, which is the case on which much of the jurisprudence is founded, says that even the right to respect family life can be disregarded if there is reasonable justification. So in my view the position certainly is not clear, and if fresh complaint is made about these rules there is a very substantial argument. I doubt whether it was ever conceived that the effect of the convention

1059
is to give a right which would override the powers of control over immigration. The United Kingdom has always been in a very special position. It was probably because of that, your Lordships may think, that the Committee of Ministers made no decision in the East African Asians case. The United Kingdom, in the aftermath of Empire, must be unique in its situation, and it faces a problem which was never faced by any other country.
As I understand the new rules, they are specifically designed to counter a racket admittedly only in a limited way. As I understand it, the refusal is to be based upon circumstances where the marriage was entered into primarily to secure admission to the United Kingdom, or where the parties have not met. In the circumstances of the existence of schemes of evasion, are the proposals so unreasonable, and do they merit some of the violent criticism that has been levelled against them?
But the core of the problem remains that out of which all our troubles grow: the imperative need for fresh legislation on nationality—to rationalise the status of British citizenship, and to return to the principle of allegiance to the Sovereign—based upon descent, birth place and residence. It will be difficult and complex, and I accept that it may cause repercussions in international jurisprudence. But it must be done, it has to be done—and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the White Paper will be presented next year—because we must remove from the shoulders of the British people this impossible burden which gets us into these wretched conditions when we have to make rules and regulations. They are of course makeshift rules, which cannot be wholly satisfactory, but they have to be practical and defensible. I wonder whether they really merit the criticisms which we have heard lodged today and which one has read about. I accept the most honourable of motives on the part of those who rightly feel passionately about these matters, who believe in the exercise of compassion, and in all the great principles of all the great religions, but are they not overlooking the weighty responsibility—and I believe it is very weighty—of those in authority, on whose shoulders rests the care and the order of our modern, but volatile society?
7.16 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, a few months ago I had the privilege of chairing the annual conference of Asian women. They were a most impressive group. In the main they were intelligent, sophisticated, enviably elegant, and, as they made clear, determined to keep their loyalty both to their own culture and to this country, to which, in statement after statement, it became very clear they had great attachment, and for which they had the very greatest respect. They had of course understandably been shaken by the virginity testing episodes—and who can blame them? But women such as those are the best possible agents for good race relations in this country. They have contacts with groups of people—young and old, newly come to this country and long established here—who, with the best will in the world, those of us here cannot reach, or who, if we do reach, we do so in a way quite different from the way of these women, who were working in their own localities and on behalf not only of their own community, but also this country, which they saw as their country of adoption. Their work, and their view of us, is surely of the greatest importance in the maintenance of race relations.
What can these women think today, faced with these proposals? And what are they to say to the critics whom they meet in their ordinary family and social life, when these new proposals are put in front of them? How can they defend their country of adoption when they see these proposed regulations put forward and they see them interpreted, as they inevitably are, by the many critics in this country and the very many critics in their own community? There is no question about it—these regulations are sexist, as the Home Secretary himself admitted, though he defended it. But he did not deny that they were sexist. But from the point of view both of these Asian women and of race relations in this county, the fact that the regulations have been improved in regard to white women makes it all the more offensive to Asian women, for the attack now is focused not on women as a whole—and we could moan about that together—but only on coloured women. So the sexist element which remains is made worse and it is seen as a greater offence by the Asian women against whom it is inevitably directed.

1061
It is very difficult to understand why the Government are doing this. The numbers concerned are agreed by all to be small. Fair enough, it is some increase in immigration; but the total numbers coming in are really negligible in relation to the population as a whole. For that matter, there cannot be such a large number of young marriageable Asian women who are prepared to take on these chaps who want to come here. After all, there is plenty of opportunity for other people in this country. It must be a limited market; there must be limited opportunities and limited numbers. How can the decent men who make up the Government have agreed to a proposition of this kind? How can the Conservative Party, in the light of its own beliefs, of its own better beliefs, really go along with this kind of proposition? The Conservative Party believes that the individual is important, and it believes in individual rights. What individual right can be more important than the individual right to choose your marriage partner in whatever way you will?
It seems extraordinarily insular to take the line that there is something totally inappropriate about the arranged marriage, and that it is a mark of degradation that you are prepared to marry someone you have not seen. It would not suit most of us, but it is, as has been said by other speakers, the established tradition for many of the people for whom we are concerned. What right have we to say that in this most personal of all relationships they should not be allowed to follow the culture of their long-established tradition? Among my own students, educated in this country, I have had girls who have gone back, and apparently gone back happily and subsequently satisfactorily, to arranged marriages. It seems odd to us, but we seem very odd to them. Surely this is a matter which should be left to them.
Then, as other speakers have said, there is the question of family life. I believe the Conservative Party genuinely believes in the importance of family life, but there are the extraordinary requirements for bringing in old people to be looked after by their relations here. Here again is an area in which it is not too difficult to say that the standards of the immigrants are higher than the standards, in many ways, of the native population.
1062
Among the many overseas students whom I have had the pleasure to teach, as they got to know one better they would sometimes say—and I have had this happen on a number of occasions—that there were many things about this country which they liked and respected, but one thing they neither liked nor respected, nor had any intention of copying, was the way in which we treat our old people. For them not to bring their old people in, not to look after them, to see that by regulation of government they are to be kept out—this is something which will inevitably sour and embitter their view of us and add to the contempt which some of them already feel.
It cannot be that the Conservative Government have fallen for that evil doctrine of the domination of the mandate; that there is the mandate of the manifesto; that because there was an unwise line in the manifesto referring to this matter they feel, as their predecessors (to the point almost of dementia) felt, that every comma which was written into the manifesto had to be turned into legislation. Surely the Conservative Party has not caught that disease from the Labour Party. No, one fears that they are doing it to placate the nastiest and most extremist elements in their own ranks—and what on earth are they doing it for? I have never been a member of the Conservative Party, but I do not believe that most of them are nasty. In any case, why do they have to bribe them? Where will these nasty people go? Thank God!, the last election showed that the Fascist party, the only proper home for them, has no real support in this country. They would not go to the Labour Party and we would not have them if they wanted to come. It can then be only as a bribe to the more vociferous elements of their constituency parties. One sympathises; one has met them; but they are surely a small proportion of the total whole.
It has been suggested—rightly, I think—that what we are urgently needing is a new Nationality Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that a new Nationality Bill is in preparation. Would it not he more logical to wait until we have this new Nationality Bill and to look at the question which is being discussed in relation to these regulations in the light of that legislation? The new Nationality Bill makes a wider approach to the whole

1063
issue. This is one little bit of the issues which will be affected by that Bill. Surely that would be more sensible. Surely every party, every person, takes false steps from time to time. This Bill, from the way it has been viewed in the responsible Press, by the Churches and by members of all political parties, including the Conservative Party, is a mistake. The Government would give themselves credit in the country, except for among a small number of people who really need not be taken too seriously, if they would now withdraw this Bill, drop these shabby proposals, and say that a Nationality Bill is due to come before us soon and that the whole issue will then be considered together.
7.26 p.m.
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, first I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed to the right reverend Prelate for his eloquent and moving speech, which underlined the moral values which the law should exist to cherish and support. I shall be following the right reverend Prelate by passing to the law and leaving to others of your Lordships the political, the social and the human questions to which this debate necessarily gives rise. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this debate. I think he has performed a public service, and is enabling this House to do that which it must from time to time do; namely, discuss in a rational and calm way issues that go to the very heart of our society.
In my speech, I shall concentrate solely on one part of the noble Lord's Motion—that is, the question of the compatibility of these proposed rules with our international obligations—but before I do so I should like, as a lawyer and as an old law reformer, to applaud the action of the Government in laying before the two Houses of Parliament and the public a White Paper containing draft proposals. I think this is the correct way for a Government to go about law reform, or indeed the creation of new rules, in relation to a subject as sensitive as this; and I, for one, am conscious that the Home Secretary in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in this House have said that they will pay particular attention to what emerges from our debate.
1064
I hope also, of course, they will pay very great attention to the organs of public opinion outside our two Houses, from which the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, quoted so powerfully in the course of his speech.
I ask myself only one question. Are these proposed rules, or some of them, incompatible with our international obligations? If they are, or if there is a real risk that they are, then it is the duty of those of us in this House who take that view to say so, and to say so now before the Government take the final step of laying them before Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said that this was a very serious debate. So it is, my Lords. Just for the short span of our discussion, this House, I would suggest, is the guardian and sentinel of the honour of our people. I think it is as high as that when one is considering the international obligations side of the matter. Of course, when the debate is over, that responsibility will pass to Her Majesty's Government who will have the opportunity which they have so wisely given themselves of reconsidering these rules in the light of all that has been said.
What are our international obligations? In the space of a short speech, one cannot conceivably cover them at all comprehensively. I am going to quote some of them and, as I do, I will ask noble Lords to bear in mind what is to be found in the proposed rules and to keep on asking themselves this question: Really, do these rules stand up to those internationally accepted obligations? Let me begin with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed almost on today's anniversary in 1948, passed by the General Assembly on 10th December 1948, with not a single vote cast against it. All that I am going to do is to quote the Preamble from the Declaration. I ask noble Lords to have in mind, as I read this most solemn Preamble, what it is proposed that we should do in regard to certain families. Of course, it will be said by the quibbling lawyer that this is not an international obligation. No, my Lords, it is an international moral obligation; but none the worse for that, as the right reverent Prelate in his speech has reminded us.
These words appear in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1065
"… recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family"—
I repeat: all members of the human family—
"is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace…".
I ask rhetorically: Are your Lordships satisfied that all of these proposed rules are consistent with recognition of the dignity and equal rights of all members of the human families? What about those poor little au pair girls? What about those aged parents and grandparents?
I pass from the Universal Declaration because it is binding in honour only—but, as I say, none the worse for that—and I come to the more specific obligations that we have accepted under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Again, because the European Convention has been bandied about in argument in the other place, in this House and in the Press, let me read to your Lordships the very first article. This is an instrument which, in almost all its provisions, has been ratified by the United Kingdom:
"The High Contracting Parties"
and that includes the United Kingdom—
"shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction"
I repeat; to everyone within their jurisdiction—
"the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention".
I will come to those in a moment.
In the course of his very able speech, if he will allow me to say so, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kept speaking about men, these wicked men, who are seeking to avoid the prohibition against primary immigration—and I say nothing as to the wisdom or otherwise of that because that is not my province—in the sub-continent of India and elsewhere. What we are discussing as a matter of law is not the right of those who are not yet here, even though their moral case is strong and powerful, as noble Lords have shown. We are discussing the rights that we must, by our international obligations, accord to persons within the jurisdiction. Take the case of the husband of the arranged marriage who wishes to come here. The right that we must preserve as a matter of law is the right of his wife who is settled here to have him with her; just as
1066
the man, if settled here, can have his wife here, even though the marriage be arranged. That is why there is an element of sex discrimination in that particular rule.
Concentrate your attention, my Lords, on the woman who is here; and then bear in mind Articles 8 and 14 of the convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, rather pooh-poohed Article 8. Let me read it; and again bear in mind those rules, those proposed rules, that we are discussing:
"Everyone has the right"
that is, everyone within this jurisdiction; that is women who have settled here, whether they were born here or not—
"to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
The woman who cannot have her husband join her in this country, is she really enjoying a right of respect for her private and family life? I have not heard it suggested, and neither do I think for one moment that anyone will suggest, that the exception clause in Article 8 can conceivably apply. There is no evidence of emergency, and, as I followed the speeches of noble Lords, no evidence of any great rush of this type of immigrant.
There is the fear of primary immigration. Whether the evidence supports that fear, I do not know. I have not heard it and I make no further comments than that because I am not here to argue a case against the control of immigration; I am merely arguing the case that some of these proposals, though designed for that purpose, are offending or infringing upon international obligations. If one therefore disregards, as I suggest one can in the circumstances in which we are placed, the exceptions clause, paragraph 2 of the article is important:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right"
That is the right to respect for private and family life.
It does not end there. There is also Article 14. That article is particularly relevant. That is the article which provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status".

1067
Again, if it be true—and it seems to me to be inescapable—that this particular rule that I am considering at the moment, which prevents a woman settled here from being joined with her husband, is limited only to certain women in our country but does not apply to others, how can one in an international court—and there is one at Strasbourg—avoid the charge of infringing Article 14? How can one avoid the charge that this woman, unlike other women within the jurisdiction, is not having the respect for her private and family life which should be given her under the convention? It is, I say with respect, a powerful case. It may or may not be right. But is it sound that we should run the risk of allowing that issue to find its way ultimately and in a most degrading fashion through the European Commission and up to the European Court years later, where again the United Kingdom, with a red face, is found to be guilty of an infringement of the Convention? It should be avoided in the interests of the honour of our country, if for no other reason.
There is another very unpleasant possibility—I put it no higher than that. It is possible of course for a contracting party to derogate in certain circumstances from the obligations that it has assumed under the convention. It is possible also in certain circumstances that some of the exception clauses contained in the convention will apply so that a country is for certain periods excused from complying with its obligations. But there are certain articles in the convention so fundamental that they contain no exception clauses qualifying them, and it is not possible to derogate from them. Article 3 is such an article. Article 3, among other things, provides that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment. I do not know, and it will be foolhardy for me to suggest, that this will happen; but it may happen. It may happen one day, if these rules stand, that the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg will say that to have a rule which makes it impossible for the husband of an arranged marriage to join his wife in this country, she being settled here, is degrading treatment when it is done merely upon the ground that the marriage is an arranged one and they have not met.
I understand why the relevant rule prohibits settlement where it is proved
1068
to the satisfaction of the immigration officer, or he has reason to believe, that the marriage is a marriage of convenience entered into for the purposes of getting into this country. That is perfectly sound, I have no complaints about that. I understand the rule which makes provision that if he does not intend to live with her he should not be allowed to come in. But what of a blanket provision where there is an arranged marriage and the parties have never met? Why should we assume, in the absence of evidence, that that is a mala fide marriage? Noble Lords have already explained the importance of honouring and respecting the social customs and practices of ethnic minorities in our midst. All of us know that the arranged marriage has been a feature of society—and of a very civilised society—in the Indian sub-continent. To impose a rule such as this is surely a very degrading treatment of those people who come from such a civilisation, whose custom it is to have arranged marriages between parties who have not met, and of whom there is no evidence that they are doing it for some mala fide or illegitimate purpose. If it should ever happen that the European Court takes that view of this particular rule, I suggest it will be a very serious day indeed for this country. I put it no higher than this: here is a risk which surely the Government can avoid without undermining their determination in the slightest degree to prohibit or control primary immigration.
May I take just one further instance—I have already gone over my time and I apologise. But there is in these rules a nasty little paragraph about au pair girls. Why should au pair girls be limited to those between 17 and 25 years of age, coming from Western European countries and, I think it is, from Malta, Cyprus and Turkey? They come to learn English; they come to live with an English family. What business have we to say that we will have none from other countries? This is surely a discrimination on the grounds of national origin which is utterly unacceptable, bearing in mind the nature of our international obligations to which I have drawn attention. And what part does this play in the battle against primary immigration?
I could—and indeed I did intend to—go on for very much longer, but I must draw to a close. This House has a

1069
proud record of standing up for the honour, international and national, of our country and for the fundamental human rights of our people. It is only a few days ago since this House gave a Third Reading to the Bill of Rights Bill. What was that Bill doing? It was seeking to incorporate into our law the relevant parts of the European Convention. I hope I have said enough to indicate that there is ground to believe that many of these rules are in contravention of obligations assumed under this convention. What are we doing, sending to another place a Bill incorporating the European Convention and allowing these proposals to go by without public and emphatic protest?
I am sorry that, owing to an inescapable engagement, I shall be unable to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to say in reply. I do not ask him to enter into a legal controversy with me. My object in making these few remarks is not to create difficulties for the Government in their immigration policy—that is a matter for them, not for me. My object is simply to urge them to use the opportunity they still have of reconsidering those rules which are not necessary for their purpose, but which put us at international risk and could in certain circumstances display us dishonoured before the world.
7.53 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I say how honoured I am to be following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and how grateful I am sure we all are for his clear exposition of the legal position. I, like him, would like to congratulate the Government for producing the White Paper before bringing out the final rules, and thus giving a chance to see if we can prevent them making bad errors. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, and, also, I should like to congratulate and to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for his very positive contribution to this debate. I hope he will give us many more opportunities like this to listen to him, although I hope it will not be on this subject.
I want to begin my speech this evening by indicating how these rules would, and
1070
could, have affected me. I was born in Grenada; my wife was born in Trinidad; my two older children were born in Trinidad and my younger daughter was born here. I should have said that I have two daughters and a son. I am now 66 years old. I have spent 32 years in London and five in Edinburgh, so that more than half my life has been spent in this country. My older childen came here when they were four and three and, as I have said, my younger daughter was born in London. My elder daughter was, in fact, working at Barts up to the beginning of 1975. In December 1975 she married a Trinidadian and is now living in Trinidad. In 1975 if she had desired to come and live here with her husband, she could have done so under the rules existing at the time. Now, of course, she would not be able to do that under the present rules.
I am not suggesting that either my daughter or my son-in-law would want to come and settle here—I do not think they would—but these rules are depriving her of certain rights which she previously had. What is more, if I had been born in Martinique or Guadeloupe instead of in Trinidad, she would have been able to come here with her husband, and settle. What is more, since her primary medical qualification is in Edinburgh, she could, if she wished, go to live in France and take her husband with her. Yet she could not do it in this country, where she has lived from the time she was four years old!
I am sure that I am not singular in this. There are a lot of people who will be in this position and they are not all black. My noble friend from the Front Bench mentioned the refugees who came here to escape from Hitler's Germany. I am sure that some of those who came here in 1936, 1937 or 1939 had small children with them who were born in Germany and who are now British citizens, as I and my children are. The funny thing about it is that those children, were they to marry Austrians, could not bring them here, but they could take them to Germany—the Germany their parents escaped from in 1936, 1937 and 1939.
I hope the Government will give more thought to this problem. I did in fact tell my noble friend Lord Belstead, if I may so call him, that he should tell his

1071
noble friend there is no point in doing what I described as closing the supermarket in order to stop shoplifting. If there are in fact people abusing the rules, let us find ways and means of dealing with them. I would have thought it is possible to have discussions with the leaders of the Communities from it which is alleged that people are coming and abusing the rules, to find ways and means of dealing with the abuses. Certainly this blanket provision, in order to deal with an abuse, is a wrong way of approaching this matter.
The second way in which these rules could have affected me concerns my late mother. Between 1958 and 1960 she lived with me. In 1960 she told me she was happier in Grenada and had more friends there and that she wanted to go back. I understood that, and she went back to Grenada and died in 1975. When my mother came there was no problem, but had she wanted to come to me now she could not possibly have done so under these rules. After all, she had a sister still living in Grenada and a large number of nephews and nieces, and not by the wildest stretch of imagination could we have said that her standard of living was lower than the average of the people of Grenada. Therefore, she could not qualify under these rules.
I know that the Government have promised to look at this. There is no need for anything more than for somebody who is bringing an aged relation to be able to show that he or she can support and accommodate that relation. What more do you want? I hope that the Government, having given us an opportunity of advising them, will take our advice and abandon this attempt to restrict the rights of women to have their husbands with them, and relax these rigid controls on aged relations.
I hope that they will also amend the rules in a few other ways. There are a few which I hope the Government will look at. One of them is a pet of mine, because it is one which I have tried to get previous Governments to change but without success. It is related to the fact that in order to get a child here you must have sole responsibility for it. I previously asked friends of mine, when they were responsible, merely to change the word "sole" to "main". I never
1072
succeeded. I hope that this Government will see the wisdom of doing that. What happens under this rule is that, so long as the father is giving a shilling or two to the child, the mother—and it is usually the mother who is working here and sending money to support the child, who is living with her grandmother—does not have sole responsibility for that child and, therefore, she cannot have that child with her. I have had lots of cases like that. I even had an interesting one in which a man had been made to pay through the court. I was told that because he was maintaining the child there was no question of the mother—she was not his wife—having sole responsibility, and therefore she could not have the child. These absurdities could be removed by changing that word, because it is the interpretation of "sole responsibility" that causes all the trouble.
I am also disturbed about the double standard in relation to the family. Why cannot the rules be the same for members of the EEC as for non-members of the EEC? Why cannot families from non-EEC countries have the same rights as families from EEC countries to have their dependants up to the age of 21? What is so difficult about that? I intended to make a few comments about students, but they have been made by other people and I do not intend to repeat them, except that I should like to make two points.
First, I should like to ask whether the rule which prohibits working after studies will apply to nurses. If it does, it will play havoc with the National Health Service. Secondly, I find it difficult to understand about sponsored students. When I studied medicine, I was sponsored and I obtained a scholarship. But if, after qualification, I now wanted to take the MD, and I wanted to do it privately, then I could not. Under these rules, I must go back home. I hope that the Government will look at this in a practical way.
I meant to say something about au pairs, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said it so much better that I shall not bother. However, I am disturbed about paragraph 79, which permits an immigration officer to detain someone for up to seven days without even telling him that he can apply for bail, and it is only after seven days that he is obliged to state that one can ask for an adjudicator.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Even under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it has now been agreed that persons can have access to a solicitor after three days.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: But not if someone is coming in. What is the defence for such an attitude? Having dealt with that point, I want to make a comment on the general attitude of immigration officers. Your Lordships will know that last year I chaired a commission which was investigating the Bermuda riots of December 1977. There were four members of the Commission from Bermuda, and three of them were black. One of the conditions that I made on accepting the appointment was that the report would be written in this country. I had my reasons and they were very firm ones. When the commission was told that, one of the members said, "Is that essential? I hate going into that place. The immigration officers always treat me badly".
Since that man is a business man and comes to this country only to do business which helps Britain's export trade, I was flabbergasted to think that he could be having such problems. The rules state quite clearly that the examination should not be carried further than is necessary for the purpose of deciding whether leave to enter should be given for a limited period, subject to any conditions. I cannot see why anyone coming here to do business should have difficulties, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ask his right honourable friend to give a general pep-talk to the immigration officers, because, when all is said and done, people get their first impression of this country from the attitude which immigration officers adopt towards them. If immigration officers adopt hostile attitudes toward them, then that is bound to affect them.
That is all I want to say about the immigration rules, but I want to invite your Lordships to ask yourselves how we find ourselves in this position. It is important that we should do this now. That is why I said to the right reverend Prelate that, although I hoped we should hear many speeches from him, I trusted that they would not be on this subject because I want this debate to be the last one. We got ourselves into this mess
1074
because of our attitude to immigration. During the war, lots of men came from the black Commonwealth to serve in the forces, while others came to work in the factories. At the end of the war, many of the chaps in the forces took their demob here, and those who worked in the factories stayed. At that time we were short of labour. Therefore, what we usually call the grapevine, the ground telegraph, indicated to those at home that there were opportunities here which could be taken. As a consequence, they came in larger and larger numbers.
The Government of the day realised the way in which people were reacting, but instead of recognising that racial prejudice was at the back of it and explaining to people the value to society of immigrants and stamping upon that prejudice so as to try to help to build a proper society, they responded by saying: "We will control immigration, because that is what we have to do". What is worse, they responded by also taking the power to deport, and that power to deport was the underlying point for racists—for the people who were complaining—because it showed them that these people were undesirables who needed to be sent back. That was in 1962.
The reason I intervened when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, made his point was because I heard at that time the nonsense about the 600 million to 900 million. I argued then, and I still argue, that all that was needed in the 1962 Act, assuming that we were going to take the power to control, was the power to exempt citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. The others were independent; control over them could have been defended. To attempt to control somebody who is a citizen of your country merely degrades that citizenship. But we went on to do that.
That was the first step in the degrading of our citizenship. Then we proceeded further. The trouble was that Governments of both political parties were working on a certain principle. The principle was that white immigration created no problem—therefore there was no need for new policies—but that black immigration, particularly those from the New Commonwealth, created problems and needed to be controlled as carefully as possible; such immigration needed to

1075
be kept at the lowest possible level, as though these people were some form of pollution that had to be controlled so as to make sure that society was not poisoned by it. That was the underlying principle of the legislation, and it still is the underlying principle of the legislation.
We had the 1962 Act, the 1965 White Paper, the 1969 withdrawal of the rights of women to bring their husbands, the 1971 Act, and now this, because we are failing to approach the matter in the proper way. There is no reason why we should not have just and reasonable immigration controls. But they must be just and they must be reasonable. The trouble is that there is a myth in this country—as a matter of fact, the Minister gave expression to it—that when you have got this steady control it helps to create the right atmosphere for good race relations. The opposite is the case, and I will tell your Lordships why.
These frequent arguments about immigration control, and these frequent proposals for immigration control, make race relations worse. They make race relations worse because they create expectations that cannot be fulfilled. When you say to somebody in Bradford that you are controlling immigration because there are too many immigrants, that person expects to see in his neighbourhood fewer black people than he saw before. But he cannot, because black women cannot make white babies. Therefore he sees more black people and concludes that you have not controlled immigration properly, that people are cheating, and that there are all kinds of reasons why he is seeing more black people in Bradford.
Then there are all these politicians who are willing to interpret the situation for him. He thereupon says that he wants more control. And when all the additional controls do not meet the case he says, "There is only one solution; they must be repatriated". And when politicians again help him by saying that they will help people who wish to go back to their country—because that is what we did in the 1971 Act—he then says, "Ah, repatriation is the answer". We have come the whole distance. What we now have is a demand not for voluntary repatriation but for compulsory repatriation. That is the underlying demand that we are now getting.
1076
In other words, I should like everybody to recognise that the logic of the policy that has been followed until now is the gas chamber. The sooner that is recognised the better. It is only when that is recognised that we are going to get the sort of policies, the sort of approach which will enable us to build the kind of society which we can so easily build. In the past, this country has absorbed large numbers of immigrants and it can absorb them again.
The only difference between the present immigrants and those of the past is the colour of their skin. That is the barrier we have to get over and we must help people to get over it. They need that help. We do not help people to get over that barrier by telling them that all we need to do is to keep out more and more immigrants. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, we help people by inviting them to work together so as to build a society of which we can be proud.
Since I have been in this House we have twice debated the family. Members have indicated how important they regard the family to be. These rules are an attack on family life, and this House must show by its action that it means what it says. I cannot do it so eloquently as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, but I want to make one last appeal. This House can say to the Government and to the people, "Enough is enough. We have had enough of this"—how shall I put it?—"backing away from the real issues, this backing away from the real contribution which we could make towards showing the world how people of different races can live together in equality and friendship". We can do it; I know we can do it. My appeal this evening is, let us do it.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, first I should like to make a very sincere apology to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I had to attend an important committee meeting in the other House and thought that I had tied up the arrangements to be telephoned the moment this Motion began. Unhappily, however, the messenger who knew me from long ago went to tea, and the gentleman who took his place did not know Lady Hornsby-Smith from a bar of soap. So I never got the message. So I owe a very sincere

1077
apology to the noble Lord. It was certainly a most unwitting discourtesy that I was not present to hear his speech. May I also add to the congratulations offered to the right reverend Prelate for a most enlightening and human speech, and I am sure we shall hope very much that it will not be four years before we hear him again.
In view of the late hour, I can tell your Lordships at once that I have already cut my speech by half and I will try not to keep you too long. We are a small and a highly populated island and I think the critics of this White Paper have substantially ignored this country's long and very generous contribution to the problem of refugees and Commonwealth immigrants. In the early days of Kenya's independence and certainly after the draconian decrees of General Amin in Uganda, we had the unhappy victims who were both Commonwealth immigrants and refugees from a country they had been forced to leave. Nor should we forget the thousands of refugees from Nazi oppression we accepted before the War, the half a million Poles after the War, the thousands of Hungarian victims of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the Anglo-Egyptian expellees of 1957. More recently, we have had the Vietnamese boat people. For a country of our size I think we have a record of which we can be proud, and I think we take more abuse than we deserve.
Over and above the legitimate entries, there is still widespread abuse which all Governments of whatever political complexion have tried to stem in this country. If we subtract the figures for embarking Commonwealth immigrants and aliens from whatever source, the figures of admissions for those categories consistently over a period of time, the net intake very considerably exceeds the numbers registered for legal and permanent entry. There are illegal immigrants coming into this country, and no one has suggested—nor does this White Paper suggest—that they are exclusively African or Asian.
Those of us who have had experience in the Home Office know that many thousands of them come from the Mediterranean, some of them come from the white Dominions, from the Arab States. In my view, it is quite reprehensible that this recommendation in the White Paper is being represented as being exclusively
1078
anti-black, which it is not. The way in which it has been presented and exploited as against the coloured races does enormous harm to race relations by the presentation that it is exclusively against those people. In many Commonwealth countries admission is denied to all but those who have the skills which the host country wants or who have very substantial means indeed with which they can sustain themselves. Most of our immigrants arrived without means, were immediately afforded equal benefits with our own citizens, and we now face a situation which I think we must face, where with heavy unemployment and the shortage of housing, our first priority must surely be to do justice to those immigrants whom we have already accepted.
Having spent three years in the Home Office with particular responsibility for immigration, may I emphasise that the abuses are not confined to Commonwealth citizens. There is, for example, no valid record of those who enter this country as so-called students, take permissible part-time student employment and worm their way into the permanent employment market, sometimes drop out of the university or college and after a few years stay on for good.
The catering trade in particular is a happy hunting ground for Mediterraneans, young and middle-aged. They flit from job to job, changing location as the authorities look like catching up on them and, further, the police just have not the manpower to catch up with these visitors or "students" who overstay their time and jump from one police area to the next. We have the professional student who comes to us at 18 and we find that he is still a student, having been through three universities, swopped his courses and not done particularly well in any, and is still a student after seven or eight years, virtually living on the British taxpayer and such benefits as he can pull out of assistance.
In my day at the Home Office I can remember a spate of young women from strictly Catholic countries who, finding themselves pregnant, raced to England, took a job for a few months, later had their babies and not infrequently did a midnight flit, leaving the British born babies in our lap. Indeed I can remember joining forces with the late Mrs. Bessie Braddock who was a leading member of the Liverpool Social

1079
Security Committee and who brought me massive evidence of this abuse from Liverpool and told me to do something about it. It was substantially halted, I may say, by the intervention and help of the late Cardinal Heenan.
When we tightened up the legislation on foreign prostitutes we had a spate of arranged marriages between lonely elderly gentlemen who, after a register office marriage, drinks in the local pub, a visit to Holborn to produce the marriage lines and get the bride registered as a British citizen, the elderly gentleman then went back home with £100 in his pocket and never saw his bride again. Some Mediterranean ladies used their newly-born child—a British citizen—to try to blackmail us into allowing the mother permanent entry, on the basis that if we sent her home she would dump her British-born child in our lap.
The Immigration Rules and, in this case, the draft rules by the Home Office, have not been devised merely to go against the blacks. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, always regarded as a very balanced and fair-minded man, I thought today made a speech which was a little extravagant, with a bias. When he made the point about the deportation being levelled at the coloured people, I can remember, a few months after that legislation came in, being asked a question in the other place: what nationality are the people who are being dealt with under the Deportation Act? Of the first eleven, nine were Mediterranean and two were Australian, which I remember saying with great relish because it had been put about that we were only going for the coloured people in that legislation. In fact, if the figures for the total period were shown I think your Lordships would find that there were very many white Mediterraneans who have offended our laws and have been deported for behaving in a reprehensible manner and probably more than there were coloured people being sent back.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I am sorry to disturb her and I thank her for her courtesy. I know that a very small percentage of the people who have been deported were in fact black. The point, however, was that the intro-
1080
duction of the power to deport at the time it was introduced created certain impressions. That was what I was saying.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, the noble Lord has emphasised a point that saddens me very much, that any regulation is immediately exploited as being anti-black when it is equally applied to aliens or Commonwealth citizens, whether they be black or white and from whatever part of the world they may come. It is this deliberate exploitation which does so much harm to race relations. In my experience immigration officers have a thankless job. They have types of persons to look out for whom we have not even mentioned this afternoon, criminals trying to get out of the country or people on the run trying to get in, of whom they are told by Interpol. They are supposed to have eyes in the backs of their heads to try to find them, poor chaps. There are people who have already been sent out of this country and have a nefarious reputation in other respects.
There are many types of people with whom the immigration officers have to deal and to whom they have to apply the regulations. I have been privileged to visit over 50 points of entry in this country and stand behind our immigration officers as they have carried out their arduous duties, from those dealing with the hordes of people who stream into Heathrow, to the lone officer in Sunderland with an endless stream of Arab seamen all claiming they were born in Aden, and therefore they must have a special certificate applying to somebody who was born in that British territory—when most of them have come from the Yemen or Syria or goodness knows where, and none, of course, has a birth certificate. If the unfortunate immigration officer gave a certificate to every Arab seaman who swears he was born in Aden, they would number more than the total male population of Aden. He has to use his experience. If we are not going to be over-burdened, he has to deal with them as fairly as he is able.
Then, I have seen the middle-aged tubby gentleman from the Lebanon trying to get in at Harwich at half-past six on a cold wet morning, who claimed to be coming as a student to take a diploma in clairvoyance. All I can say is that I did not have to be a student of clairvoyance to

1081
see that his wife was about eight months pregnant and that was the only reason he was trying to get in.
Immigration officers have also to be vigilant about security. There are times when the Press build up an enormous anti-immigration officer, anti-Home Office case. I can remember one campaign, as some Members who were with me in the other place will—the Farkas case, Hungarian refugees who had opted to go to Latin America. They left. They were smuggled on board a P & O liner—two men, two women in advanced state of pregnancy, three children. Initially the Home Office—and I equally shared the stick we got—did not believe their story, thought it was a plant. To cut a very long story short, the Press built it up. We had three weeks of yards and yards of publicity, thousands of letters, debate in the Chamber, when it was obvious the Home Secretary would have been defeated and had quite rightly to yield to what was inevitable; he let them in. The babies were born under one of the greatest consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists at Queen Charlotte's. Families sent them layettes, local authorities gave them delightful housing, furniture firms gave them furniture, grocers sent them food. All this we had for weeks in the Press. But when they skipped out one night on the Polish S.S. "Batory", when they went back to Budapest and gave the filthiest broadcast about this country I have ever heard—saying that we treated them like cattle in their pregnancy, that they had no medical attention—not one newspaper would admit that the Home Office and those much vilified immigration officers, who were given hell for weeks, in their wisdom were right.
In turning to the Commonwealth immigration problem on which so much has been said today, the Commonwealth immigrants who have opted to come here and stay with us, I agree fully that many of them have made an invaluable contribution to our economy and are good and valuable citizens. It is common knowledge nevertheless that a minority have seized upon the right of entry of a spouse to build up a revolting traffic in arranged marriages. A Commonwealth citizen who has no right of entry at any time on any grounds can jump the queue over the genuine United Kingdom passport holders patiently waiting in the queue
1082
by paying a large sum of money to a disreputable resident or agent who will arrange a technical marriage with some poor young girl in this country, who, even if the marriage is never consummated, must act and behave as a formally married wife until such time as her father and the divorce court will release her from the bondage. There is evidence produced recently from high level sociological inquiries that many young women of Eastern parentage, educated and growing up in this country, yearn to share the individual dignity and rights which our law provides for our young women. I wonder what has happened to our humanitarians, who will fight to the death just one case of someone penalised, and yet we hear them dismissing as of no consequence—"too trivial to be worried about", said a leading Member of the Opposition in the other House—the appalling abuse when these young women are forced into marriages they do not wish.
Timing has a great effect on the Press in this country. If before this White Paper had been published a couple of girls had rushed to the Council of Civil Liberties pleading and imploring and saying, "My father is forcing me to marry", if that had hit the Press first, the women's libbers would be talking about another aspect of the Charter of Human Rights—about the rights and freedom of women, about what has never been implemented by the eastern countries, the limit at which you can let a girl marry, about the rights of the girl not to be forced into the bondage of marriage, let alone as a human being to be sold into marriage. I wonder what the difference in attitude might have been had the timing been just that much different.
I am at one with those who recognise the problems which still face us in employing and housing immigrants—whether white or black—whom we have already accepted. I believe that we should be doing our utmost to make life happier for them and to improve relations. I passionately believe that the Government are right to try to contain the numbers so far as is fair and reasonable and, above all, to stop this country being made a soft touch by abuses that defy our law.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked why the whole world

1083
could not have the same freedom as the EEC. Does he honestly think that this country could take probably a quarter of a million Vietnamese boatmen who would seek to come? Does he really think that we could take the Chinese who try to get to Hong Kong, which is trying to keep them out? Does he not think that there are many thousands of Iranians who would now like to pour into this country and get away from their new Moslem dictator? Surely even he thinks that there must be a limit somewhere.
8.41 p.m.
Lord CHITNIS: My Lords, like so many others who have spoken I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us an opportunity to debate these rules today. I must say that I speak with some reluctance in this debate, because I do not like speaking in your Lordships' House as an Asian, although I think that perhaps on this occasion I should do so as I believe I am the only Member of your Lordships' House—at any rate of those who attend—of my precise ethnic background. I would much prefer to talk to your Lordships as a Yorkshireman having lived there for 10 years but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford said, people did not accept him as a Yorkshireman and thought that he came from the deep South and was daft. So, my Lords, what do your Lordships think those people think of me?
I am a second generation immigrant. My parents came here from India, although I have lived here all of my life. So far as I can make out, if there is an ethnic question in the 1981 census, then I would put down my ethnic group as being Asian. However, I have always hoped that was not the most important feature about myself. I have never wanted only to involve myself in the speeches that I make in this House, or in the work I did outside, in the race relations business. Generally speaking, other than perhaps my private tastes—the music I may like to listen to or the food I may like to eat—I prefer to forget that I am in fact an Asian. Indeed, I suspect that that position is true of most members of the Asian community in this country. They do not want to find that the only things they can do is make careers in the
1084
field of race relations by taking jobs with the CRE or community relation councils or whatever, or that the only voluntary activities in which they can involve themselves are the ethnic group associations. Many of them have not found themselves confined in that way to very great effect.
The Asian community has provided this country with a number of distinguished professors, successful company executives, successful businessmen and so on. Indeed, the only really sophisticated social survey that I have seen on the composition of the Asian community in this country, commissioned by the Government, showed that their profile was remarkably similar to that of the white population. Indeed, I would argue that the Asian community here has a number of qualities which, far from being foreign and alien to this country, fit in very well with what might be called "traditional" or "old-fashioned" British values. I am referring to matters like a respect for education, for family life, for the care of the old, and a spirit of enterprise.
All those things really have, in the past perhaps been one of the glories of Britain, and the Asian community shows them to some effect. Indeed, it seems to me that these are not only old-fashioned and traditional British values: they might even be called Conservative values with a large "C". I suspect that if we took away the colour from most of the Asian community in this country, they would turn out to be natural Tories, far more than the relatively few who are members of the Indian Conservative Association or whatever it is called. However, the trouble is that we cannot take away the colour from a member of the Asian community in this country any more than we can evidently take away from a party its natural colouring.
The point that I am trying to make is that, before the Asian community in this country will make up its mind about the actions of a Conservative Government, they must first look at the Conservative Party which produces that Government. When they do so, what do they see? I wish here and now to acquit absolutely the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, of any kind of racial prejudice. Although I might say that, when he makes the point that if the Conservative Government are doing beastly things to immigrants, then "yah-boo",

1085
the Labour Government did it as well, that may be a satisfactory answer to politicians, but it is not a particularly satisfactory answer to the Asian community. Anyway, I certainly acquit him of that.
But he must realise that Asians have eyes and ears, and Asians every year look at the television coverage of the Tory Party Conference. I am thinking of the Tory Party Conerence over the last couple of years. Having looked at that coverage, they come to much less charitable conclusions than the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Every year we hear speeches made by people from the rostrum which are frankly racist. It may be said, "But you know every party has these mad men in it; every party has these lunatics who every now and again up and speak".
I have managed party conferences in my life and I know perfectly well how easy it is to keep people away from the rostrum if one does not want to see them on it. Secondly, when these people say things, what are the sentiments that are cheered? How does one get a rousing roar from a hall at a Tory Party Conference? So far as I can make out from my experience, one does so by saying pretty unpleasant things about immigrants. We notice comments made by a leading Conservative—it has already been mentioned—about the danger of this country being "swamped" by immigrants. However, in the spirit of the way in which these regulations have been framed, as the statement was made by a woman we need not take it too seriously. I noticed that a prominent Conservative threw a fit of hysterics when a relative was rash enough to go out with a relative of mine. We notice the Questions tabled by Members of the Conservative Party on the Order Paper of this House, Questions which refer to the non-white human population of this country in terms which at the very least make us feel that we are separate, if not unwelcome.
So, the Asian community here decide that the Tory Party does not much like them. It is from that basis that they begin to look at the proposals that are made by the Conservative Government now. When they do so, they become extremely insecure. I suppose it is inevitable that I receive a larger postbag from members of the Asian community than other members
1086
of your Lordships' House. I can only say that I find pitiful the worries that have been induced in an otherwise hardworking, responsible set of the community. They are not the worries only of the people whose own lives will be affected by these proposals if they are carried through—they are the worries of people who are not quite sure what the regulations will be and are worried about what will happen to them, worries of people who say, "If they do this today, what will they do tomorrow? That is what the Government have done to what I think is a very useful part of the British community.
So the conclusion that I have come to is that if the Government want us to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at the start of his speech, that these regulations are free of any kind of racial bias, they are what any Government would have to do in the circumstances; this is an absolutely neutral and responsible action; then I think we must realise that Asians will never accept this from the Conservative Party as it is. If the Government want their good faith to be accepted, then I think that before they start putting forward these new regulations, they ought to put their own party house in order first, and look at some of the people who are office bearers of the Conservative Party in the country. They should take a very close look at some of their parliamentary candidates and if they want a few suggestions I can tell them some. They ought to have a major campaign in their party to educate the Members of the Conservative Party to the fact that the immigrants in this country are not only inevitably here but are desirably here and are making a great contribution to life here.
Do that, and we may accept their good faith; do not do that, then, in fact, the Asians will not go rioting in the streets. Throughout the debate this afternoon one seems to get the impression that people from the sub-continent are a collection of petty crooks sitting down, filling in forms, trying to flog their daughters off as somebody else's wife or whatever. No, every chief constable will tell you that the Asian community is one of the most law-abiding sections of the community of this country. We shall not take to the streets and throw stones through windows, but we shall remain suspicious of everything that the Conservative Government do, that has anything to do with a racial

1087
community. We shall be desperately disappointed that many hopes that we had regarding the Conservative Government in other areas will not be realised in this case. Also, if they go ahead with these regulations, and if they do not withdraw them, the Conservatives will have passed up a chance to teach the Asians perhaps the one thing that we can learn from the British—tolerance.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness LOCKWOOD: My Lords, may I again declare an interest and seek the indulgence of the House to speak on a subject on which I have spoken on a number of occasions in a different context—namely, as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, a Commission which has as its responsibility to eradicate discrimination on grounds of sex and to promote equality of opportunity between the sexes generally.
I have spoken on this issue on numerous occasions since the Commission was established in 1975 and have made representation to consecutive Home Secretaries. Therefore, so far as I am concerned this is not a new issue. However, I want to take advantage of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put before the House. I want to thank him for this opportunity to discuss the White Paper on these proposed Immigration Rules.
In my comments I want to concentrate, of course, on those aspects which I regard as being sex discriminatory and which have aroused a great deal of anger among a great many women in this country—so much so that the Home Secretary has conceded that he will make changes in the rules which have been laid before Parliament in two important respects. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has referred to those changes which will withdraw the distinction between women born here and women born abroad; in so far as those British women who were born abroad and have one parent who was born in this country, they will be treated in the same way. Both these groups of women will be given a right under the rules rather than a possible claim under the rules, in the case of women who were born here, or total discretion on the part of the Home Secretary for
women who were born abroad.
1088
We are grateful to the Home Secretary for these concessions in so far as they will ease the minds and the position of a number of British women who otherwise would have had to struggle to obtain their right to settle with their husband in this country. But—and it is a very big but—this concession does not alter the fundamental position of British women. I regret to say that we are second-class citizens compared to men. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said this afternoon, British women have no right in law to bring a husband from a foreign country to settle here. They are being given a right under arrangements which can be changed, not by legislation which has a full scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, but by administrative rules.
It so happens that on this occasion we have had a White Paper which has been debated in both Houses, but this need not necessarily be the position. Moreover, not all British women are covered by the rules. Those British women not born here who do not happen to have a parent born in this country are still left completely outside the rules. Therefore, we have three groups. We have, first, the group of British men with rights under our nationality law; we have British women with rights conveyed by this rule and we have British women with no rights either under nationality law or under immigration rules.
Noble Lords have said and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in particular said, that the concession makes the rules more discriminatory on grounds of race because the effect of the proposed changes will be to exclude mainly Asian and other new Commonwealth groups. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view because what has happened is that many of the articulate white women who were concerned about their position have had their position mitigated, whereas the newer British women citizens have not. I would remind the House that all British citizens, irrespective of colour, have, or should have, rights as citizens of this country. Obviously, some very difficult decisions will have to be made in future by Home Secretaries.
In the period 1969 to 1974, successive Home Secretaries had to deal with difficult cases of hardship on humanitarian grounds. I do not think that any of us envied them

1089
in their task in deciding whether or not this claim or that claim should be admitted. I regret to say that the present Home Secretary and his Ministers will be faced with similar difficulties. It was the very pressure of these cases between 1969 and 1974 that led to the change in the rules at that time.
Let me give just one or two examples. Reference has been made in the debate to refugees. Only a few days ago I was contacted by a Polish woman who obtained British citizenship 13 years ago. She lives in her own property; she is supporting a paralysed mother. Both she and her parents were born in Poland and came here because of political difficulties. She is engaged to an Iraqi student who is here for five years and who has already completed four years of his studies. Her position is that she does not want to live in Iraq; she does not want to leave her dependent mother and she does not want to lose her home here. That is the kind of situation with which the Home Secretary will have to deal.
Another group which will cause difficulty was brought to my attention only last night when I was talking to a manager of a very well-established multinational company. I was told of the concern of this company. It has been their policy to foster service abroad. This has meant that second and third generations of British families have served the company overseas. The company believe that they could well have British women who were born overseas of British parents themselves born overseas who will have no right of settlement under the present rules. Furthermore, they fear that British couples serving overseas at the present time with rights themselves will be careful to ensure that any children they have must be born in the United Kingdom; for they have sensed the danger which the White Paper, as published, makes clear: that the rules can be changed with retrospective effect to deny a girl born abroad her full right as a British citizen.
In order to avoid this danger the price to be paid will be that some pregnant women will fly back to the United Kingdom in order to ensure that their child, if a daughter, will have British citizenship. Of course if it is a son, it will not make any difference and the journey will have been in vain because a son would have his
1090
rights guaranteed. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and others have said the basic problem is rights under nationality law. Rather than tinker in this restrictive way with immigration rules we need to firmly establish in law equal nationality rights for men and women. I regret that the Government did not give this first priority.
I now turn to some of the anomalies in the rules themselves. If we look at paragraphs 50 to 52, for example, presumably even those women who are being given a right under the rules will still have to clear obstacles (a), (b) and (c). The first is that the marriage was one entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. If it was, then the right will disappear. Secondly, that one of the parties no longer has an intention of living permanently with the other as his, or her, spouse. Presumably again, if that is so the right will disappear. Thirdly, that the parties to the marriage have not met. We have already had comments from different noble Lords on this third clause—that the parties to the marriage have not met.
The fact is that these three clauses again underline the different status that is given to men and women. Men will have the automatic right to bring a wife or fiancée here irrespective of these three rules, but women will not. I wonder whether the Government have thought carefully through the implications of paragraph (c)—that the parties to the marriage have not met—because the effect of this could be that to allow men to continue with arranged marriages (as is assumed under the rules) will mean that those Asian girls who are living in this country will suffer from a double discrimination. They will find that they cannot follow their traditional culture and go abroad to bring a husband back into this country through the arranged marriage system, but equally they will find that their male peers are doing so. Thereby, the pool of possible, eligible young males whom they might marry will be that much smaller. This could place the Asian girls in a very difficult situation.
Customs die hard, particularly in the first generation, and this is a problem which I think is not going to remain with us for long. Nevertheless, it is a problem which is with us at the moment. I hold

1091
no brief for arranged marriages which are against the wishes of one of the parties, but I hesitate to make a general judgment on a culture which I do not share. I wonder whether we are approaching the problem in the right way, and whether it would not be better for us to be more understanding of the difficulties that our Asian colleagues are going to be faced with.
Reference has also been made by a number of noble Lords to the situation in Europe. As well as our friends in the European Community having the right to bring a husband into this country if they wish to come over here to work and settle, they will have an added advantage which British women will not have, and indeed which British men will not have. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred to this. If we look at paragraph 131 of the proposed rules on the subject of families, we find that members of the families who are allowed to accompany an EEC settler include "the person's spouse". It is not a question of the person's wife, a man's wife, or, in the case of a woman, a husband. It is neutral: "the person's spouse". I wish we had that same clause in other sections of the rules.
In addition to the spouse, their children under 21 are included; that is, both male and female; whereas under other sections of the rules for a British person it is a child under 18 or, for a girl but not for a boy, between the ages of 18 and 21. Equally, the definition includes parents, grandparents, and other relatives. Therefore, we have a wide definition here of the family which I think could well apply to the position of British people under their own rules.
There are a number of other requirements. For example, it is going to be a fact that a widowed mother will be allowed to come into the country, but a widowed father could only be brought in if he is aged 65 or over. So again we have here this question of sex discrimination between parents. We have an age limit for men, but we have no age limit for women. There are a number of anomalies of this kind in the rules which treat men and women differently. I hope that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will look carefully at these anomalies.
Finally, there are a number of categories of persons coming into this country for
1092
temporary purposes. They are not coming to settle here, nor are they British citizens wanting to return to this country, but people coming from other countries abroad for a temporary purpose where they are going to be allowed in under the rules, and again where a man might bring a wife and dependent children to accompany him provided they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds and provided they do not take employment. But again the fact is that even with these stringent restrictions, a woman could not do the same; in other words, a woman coming here for temporary purposes under the rules would not be allowed to bring with her her husband and children. This relates to the position of students, if one looks at paragraphs 21 to 25, as it relates to businessmen, self-employed persons and to persons of independent means such as writers, artists and so on.
What I think this does is to reflect an outdated approach to the relationship between men and women. All these categories assume that the woman will be the dependant—that the wife will be the dependent person in the marriage—but these days there are situations where the primary person in the marriage, the wage-earner, is the woman. The proposed rules take no account whatever of that situation. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this.
Having said that, I come back to the basic and fundamental point I made at the outset, namely that the women of this country will continue to feel aggrieved until they are afforded equal status and rights under nationality law. I hope the assurance the Minister gave—that there will be a White Paper on this subject—will be followed by early legislation which will deal with this primary and fundamental problem.
9.11 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I apologise for being slow to rise. Apparently I was so attentive to the speech of my noble friend, and have been so little attentive to some other developments, that I thought there were two or three speakers in front of me, as indeed there were on the list and still remain on my list, although I had been told that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had decided not to speak again after his gifted speech earlier in the day.

1093
The last person on the Benches opposite with whom I would wish to argue is the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who has been particularly kind to me in my dotage, but I thought some of her extremely graphic and interesting pictures failed to take cognizance of some of the relevant position. We had one picture of her standing behind an immigration officer, known to be a good one, interviewing immigrants, and she was shocked at what she saw. One would have thought that no immigration officer would be allowed to be ignorant of the visit of a distinguished and gifted Minister of the Crown and one would have thought it extremely unlikely that the persons being interviewed would have any knowledge whatever that the very charming and attractive lady standing behind the immigration officer was in fact a Minister of the Crown and was keeping them under observation and watching their behaviour.
In Kenya the noble Baroness found some quite astonishing things. It was Mr. Kenyatta who stopped the difficulties in Kenya, or the fact that his system of government, which remained the government by two tribes, rather eliminated a lot of poor Africans from having any great part in the State. His behaviour was such that instead of sending him a rope, they sent him a gun carriage, and the two in quite different connections.
My Lords, I recall the exodus from Uganda, which was a paradise when I saw it. I think it was the loveliest country I have ever seen, with very much the nicest people. I heard some of the schoolgirls in school uniforms singing On Ilkley Moor baht 'at in Swahili, which was a special privilege. They were driven out by Field Marshal Amin, and Field Marshal Amin was put in by the British Government, while Mr. Obote, who was regarded as a little off-colour, was attending a Commonwealth conference far away in Singapore. Perhaps to say "put in" overstates the matter, but they knew of it; that he had been recommended as a member of the Scots forces serving under a very gallant and distinguished British officer, who was for a brief time a Member of the other place, is certain. So there is a situation in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutchinson—
Several noble Lords: Lord Rawlinson.
Lord HALE: I must not forget the noble and learned Lord's name for the second time; it is a sign of my dotage that names come a little less readily to me. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, well and I respect him. He was of course a Law Officer of the Crown, and indeed he delayed his appointment in order to defend the Member for Oldham. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, was right of course. We do need a Nationality Act; but heaven knows what this Government might produce after this. The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, saved me what was going to be an extremely unpleasant duty, though it would have been performed with some rigour. Few politicians have ever spent less of their lives attending party conferences than I have. I have never spoken at the Labour Party conference, and I remember only about one occasion when I managed to stay right through; and I was the Member for Oldham for 23 years. Probably because I switched on the wrong knob and did not get the cricket I heard the debate on race relations at the Conservative Party conference, and it was not a triumph for Saatchi and Saatchi. It was there, as Lord Chitnis said; one could see the weight of the pressure to try to prevent aspirants to speak from expressing their own views, and to express instead the muted views of the respected members of the Party.
May I say that the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford must surely have brought a little shame for those who are being pushed through the Lobby tonight to defend these proposals. The proposals have an unpleasant smell from start to finish, and that they are produced by a Minister so widely respected as is William Whitelaw is astounding.
My noble friends referred to the reception of the matter by the Press. Our trouble used to be the Press. Our trouble was that so much of this antagonism had been fomented by the Press; and it is a measure of the situation to which Britain has been brought that a large portion of her daily Press today is controlled from abroad.
My Lords, I have spoken before of the town of Oldham. I speak of it again in the light of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford has said, because

1095
Oldham actually touches the borders of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which used to have a Conservative county council which spent rather less on any kind of social reform than almost any county council in England. But they are fine people there; many of them grand people. When the Pakistanis came to Oldham we were apprehensive about what might happen. People in Lancashire had no great acquaintance with foreign people at all in those days. Nowadays, of course, they have massive lorries driving almost non-stop from Constantinople through to Scotland. Our one great good fortune was that we had what was perhaps the best local paper in England; a liberal paper which has tried to give absolutely fair representation to all three parties, with considerable success, and which I read now because they insist on sending me a copy once a week. So I turned up this week's copy and found that at this late hour they have felt it necessary to form an all-party committee, with its members drawn from all types of employment, to fight for the victims of these racial laws.
My Lords, they have some cases under consideration. There is one in which two young boys flying to join their father, and being met by their father, were told on arrival that they did not fulfil the qualifications, and were sent home. As a result of the activities of the present Member for Oldham West, fairly rapidly they were given a passport, with their mother, and complete freedom to join their father. Think of the agony! Think of the costly mistake that was made! My objection to this particular White Paper is that almost every test is a subjective test, and it is a subjective test by the immigration officer or the person who is administering it. Who is to decide, and how can one decide? How does one estimate this business of saying that the old man, the grandfather, might be able to come if it can be shown that his standard of living is not notably less than the average standard of living in this country? Think of that to a Pakistani!
Then there are the grandparents who have been refused permission to join a couple of exceedingly prosperous doctors—we were told in another place—who are anxious to make them a home and make their lives agreeable. For whose benefit
1096
is that? Why are there all these regulations? I know it is difficult; I know it is complicated. I would think that the fact that the Baader-Meinhof criminals can come into this country without detection, and remain without being recognised for months, undisguised, suggests that there is a difficulty in keeping track of people. It is, roughly speaking, impossible. The numbers are so small and the possibilities of future emergency so great. One speaker on the other side said that we shall be having the Iranians next. I think it is said that 300,000 have come in already in the last week or two. I may be exaggerating the number in my mind, but a large number have arrived since the moment they heard of the Ayatollah. For what purpose or on what grounds they are admitted, we do not know.
The Minister enjoys as much respect, personal respect, as almost any Minister. He did see the error in the ways of the person who drafted this document and gave certain undertakings to deal with some of the problems. A junior Minister made the quite gratutious statement that we would be surprised at the number of girls who had written and said, "Do not let him come in to marry me." I am surprised. Under the rules I cannot say more, but it is difficult to understand why people write to a newly-appointed junior Minister in the Foreign Office about their marriage before seeing their local advisers, and what reasons they gave and what hopes they have. This is really a rather gratuitous insult to these ladies which need not have been made. There is not the slightest reason in the world to believe that the arranged marriage is not as calculated to have success among the people with the faith that they have, the beliefs and customs that they have and the relatives that they have. My Lords, I apologise for having spoken a minute or so longer than I intended. I hope that this debate is not a sign of further things to come.
9.28 p.m.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, in view of the time, I have decided not to make a speech but to put one detailed question to the noble Lord. May I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 39 of the White Paper, the paragraph entitled "Writers and artists"? I should like to quote the first two sentences for the

1097
benefit of those who have not got the document:
"A passenger seeking entry as a writer or an artist must hold a current entry clearance granted to him for that purpose. He may be admitted for an initial period of up to 12 months subject to a condition prohibiting his freedom to take employment".
Could we consider these visitors for a moment—these writers and artists? It makes no difference to me whether they come from America, Africa, Asia or the Mediterranean—from where so many people come. This is of no significance to me. Wherever they come from, they are very unlikely to be numerous. They are among the most unobtrusive of temporary immigrants. They do not take up much space. They do not eat very much because they cannot afford to—and this is the point. It is extremely important for an artist or writer to travel; but it is often necessary to find some part-time employment, some odd job, to keep alive. The rules completely forbid it. For example, would such a visitor be deemed to be taking employment if he gave private tuition in his own native language? Certainly these particular visitors are very unlikely to qualify under the plutocratic requirements demanded of the self-employed.
It is worth a thought that had these rules been in force in Paris at the relevant time, George Orwell could not possibly have worked in that ghastly restaurant and the world would have been deprived of a remarkable book. I want to suggest that a small change could greatly improve the lot of these temporary immigrant writers and artists. Could they not be treated at least as generously—if that is the word—as the working holidaymakers that are referred to in paragraph 30? However, that paragraph applies only to young Commonwealth citizens aged from 17 to 25. To meet my point fully, the discrimination against non-Commonwealth citizens would have to be removed and the upper age limit would either have to be raised or abolished. That is all I am going to say. I suggest that this is a very small point which the Government might consider and even concede without violating the spirit of the White Paper. I will spare your Lordships what I was going to say about the White Paper.
9.32 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords,
1098
probably the most unhappy night of my life in this House was that of 29th February 1968. I know that because I know the agonies that some of my well respected and well meaning friends on the other side of the House must be feeling tonight because on that night on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, so far as I was concerned, we made one of the worst insults possible to our intelligence; and, secondly, a denial of the whole nature of human rights. This is important. I am being very generous and I am trying to save the Government opposite from making the mistakes of proceeding down the slippery slopes on which we found ourselves with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. That was a confirmation and it was a panic measure. Nobody can doubt that. From thereon, having once betrayed the principles of my own party, we slipped and everybody has been dragged into this.
This is what I feel about this draft White Paper tonight. It is a warning to all of us of what is liable to happen. As has been pointed out, this is a draft. The House should thank the Government for giving us the foresight of what were their intentions or thinking in this matter. I hope that the Government will take it away and look at it again and realise what a hopeless and insulting document it is. It is not just the immigrants, potential immigrants or people who were immigrants and are now settled citizens in this country; it is the British people who are being insulted. We are denying their long-held illusions about the generosity and justice of our race. I speak as I must with some feeling about this because I was on the original Community Race Commission with my noble friend Lord Pitt who was the deputy chairman.
We did, I think, foresee at that time the kind of things which would happen because we at that moment, if I may say so on behalf of myself and my noble friend, were dealing with our own party and our own Government. Therefore, we were fighting the kind of "skid" situation of which we see a culmination tonight. But what we were doing, meaningfully I think, was getting a recognition throughout the country that provided we had, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford pointed out—and I should like to thank him very much for his maiden speech—I actual and direct participation, people to

1099
people, that was what mattered and not what was put down in books of rules or anything else. But we were then fighting the kinds of things which people thought they could put down in books of rules. We fought them, we struggled with them and so on. But this is now something in a concrete form which I find so utterly distasteful and—I repeat again a word keep on using—insulting. It is insulting my intelligence and insulting, as I say, the intelligence of the people of this country.
There is one thing we must realise, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, in what, if I might say so, I thought was a magnificently objective speech, although I speak of my reading of what he was talking about. Here we are, confronting a Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a convention but it is our avowal of universal principles and I think your Lordships will agree, on his examination of the definition, that we are definitely out of court on the European Human Rights Convention.
I would urge the Government to go away and look again very hard at this because, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, this is where we are really going to have our noses rubbed in it. Here we are in this Bill, making all our genuflections to the EEC—and think of all the care we are taking of EEC members, who are going to have all these privileges and all these rights which are denied to the Commonwealth people and to the general run of immigrants. We have to look at that because, as the noble and learned Lord said, we shall be brought to the bar.
The thing which I find equally revolting is the condescension, if I may put it that way, with which we are looking at what we choose to call the arranged marriage. I do not approve of arranged marriages. I would not have let anyone arrange mine and I would not arrange anybody else's; but we have to realise—those of us who have had some experience of travel—that in some of the greatest cultures of the world there is this acceptance of the arranged marriage. This includes what has now become a fatal barrier; namely, the fact that you do not see the bride. In my own part of the world, you were not allowed to see the bride, at least in her bridal dress, which is one of the last remaining signs of what was there with us.
1100
We really are, in this matter—and I will hammer this home—insulting the cultures. We are suggesting, as was pointed out by a previous speaker, that this procedure, which is very deeply valued in the cultural divisions of many religions and not just on the Indian sub-Continent, is somehow being used as a method of evading the immigration laws and smuggling in husbands, and so forth. As was borne out by some of the references here, the number of occasions on which the man in an arranged marriage is doing it simply for the purpose of becoming a settled immigrant here is extremely small.
We still insist that we have not had, and nobody has been prepared to give us, the figures or even the relative proportion, which would justify this egregious act of saying that any arranged marriage is simply a devious device for smuggling in a husband. At each stage, we are dealing with smaller and smaller areas of potential immigration. I think we all agree that the primary immigration problem is well under control, and has been for a long time, in spite of some of the yelps.
But I want to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Pitt said. It does not matter what you do. It does not matter what you throw to the NF or the racists. They will come back for more. As he said, one way of demonstrating that you are doing something about the coloured immigrants is to line them up, march them through the streets and put them on a boat at the docks. Of course, you could put them somewhere else, as the Nazis did. This is what we have come to and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Pitt said. The only choice we have is to send them home in this most discriminating way, after we have broken down the family, broken down their cultures and treated them as second-class citizens. What else can we offer them? What are we going to do about race relations, when we have reached this stage of being one step away from the final solution?
9.43 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McNair, I have torn up my speech and propose to make just a few comments in a couple of minutes. I should like to thank the noble Lord,

1101
Lord Avebury, for initiating this debate today, in order that we may talk about the proposals for revision of the Immigration Rules. The Home Secretary said in another place:
"I now invite the House to approve these proposals. This does not mean that my mind is closed to suggestions for modification of the draft rules contained in the White Paper".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/79; col. 253.]
Therefore, it is right and proper that we should be discussing these today.
I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his most constructive and positive speech, which indicated a love of mankind, caring for each person whatever his colour, race and creed; this love of mankind which is so dependent upon personal relationships. I have many friends from all nations among the immigrant population. May I first mention remarks made to me by people in that great country of India? Somebody in the Indian Government had a map of India and he put on it a map of England. He said, "It is incredible that your little country will take so many of our people. Nevertheless, I wish that our people would remain with us and I am sad and sorry that we are losing to your country some of our best people, whom we could well keep in our country and whom we need and need sorely. But there is the point of view of freedom. If they wish to go, they must go."
Equally, I remember a perfectly magnificent community relations officer in Manchester, a coloured man from India, saying to me, "You English are extraordinary! You think that we enjoy being here, and many of us do; but we long to get back to our own land". I wonder sometimes whether we are going about things in the wrong way: whether we ought, instead, to be conferring with the Third World to find out how conditions could be bettered and developed there, with help from the rest of the world, so that people did not have to leave their homelands but could remain there.
By the same token, many members of the coloured population, wherever they have come from, have been to see me about their children. Their children cannot get jobs, and therefore are unable to work. This worries them. They have said that for the sake of this country, of themselves and of their children they hope
1102
that we may bring in rules which will perhaps prevent primary immigration taking place but which will at the same time, as I said earlier, help their own countries to become better places in which people can live.
There are many things in the White Paper which I consider should be revised, particularly those relating to the elderly and the au pair. Today's debate has given us an opportunity to discuss them. However, these questions have been dealt with in a far better way than I could deal with them. Therefore, I propose to make the shortest speech in this debate.
9.47 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which I found to be quite exceptionally interesting. We are only two weeks away from Christmas and it is the season of goodwill. Therefore, strongly as I feel about mass immigration and its consequences and the motives of those who condone and encourage it, I had given serious thought to toning down my speech. But so fierce, so intemperate and so uncompromising have many of the speeches from the Labour and Liberal Benches been that I feel that I ought not to pull my punches. There is another story to be heard; there is another side to the case. It concerns the wishes of the British people. As so often happens, it has not had much of a look-in today.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not, I am sure, expect that I am going to agree with him very much. As a matter of fact, I agree with him on one or two small points, in particular on the question of students and why students are unable to take temporary jobs. I am also inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman about the question of au pairs. On the whole, however, I believe that the proposals contained in the White Paper are moderate and fair. There are many sensitive touches, such as the provision relating to unmarried girls between the ages of 16 and 21 and that which allows children in certain circumstances to join a single parent in this country. Indeed, in the case of former illegal immigrants the proposals seem to be positively generous.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not want to go too much into the

1103
question of sex discrimination. Certainly there is discrimination in theory; but how much is there in practice? My mother is American, but it would never have occurred to my father for one single instant that that gave him the moral right to go and live in the United States, if he so chose; and I doubt very much whether he had the legal right, either. I realise that with women's liberation, and so on, times have changed; but in the real world, none the less, 999 women out of 1,000 go where their husbands go. His career is the one which takes precedence.
I agree with the criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the way in which an Italian girl can marry an Indian and bring him into this country, while an English girl cannot do so. It is a ridiculous anomaly. However, I think it is well known that I do not believe that this country should be a member of the EEC, so my position on that point is perfectly consistent.
Undeniably there may be hardships in a few individual cases if these proposals are implemented, and to that extent I do not deny that it is regrettable. However, I have always understood that more often than not politics means having to choose between the lesser of two evils. The choice here is between the evil of a possible injustice to a few individuals or the evil of a greater injustice to the British people as a whole. By "greater injustice" I mean perpetuating the great wrong done to the British people by condoning and encouraging large-scale immigration—and I emphasise the words "large-scale"—and failing to make long-overdue amends to them. Make no mistake, my Lords, it was a great wrong to alter the character of large areas of this country so drastically. It was a great wrong to store up trouble for future generations, because after all the people are not ignorant of the fact—although they may not know the precise data—that for every successful multi-cultural society in the world there are at least 10 unsuccessful ones. If there were time I would gladly give chapter and verse on that. It was a great evil to do all this without consulting the people—without a referendum. Whether or not noble Lords disagree with me, I am sure that they must know in their hearts that if
1104
there had ever been a referendum the people would have voted overwhelmingly against what has happened.
Instead, what did happen? Working class people who complained about the impact upon their way of life were sneered at by sociologists who accused them of adopting petit bourgeois attitudes and of being "not on the side of life"—that favourite cliché of the early and mid-1960s. Professional people, academics and others, who so much as ventured to suggest that totally unlimited immigration might on the whole not be a good thing were virtually accused of being on a moral par with Nazi concentration camp guards, and if anyone thinks that I am exaggerating I suggest that they look up some of the speeches and the articles written at that time. They were often accused of this by the very people who, a few years later, were voting for immigration control. That was what compounded the wrong: the Establishment, the politicians and opinion formers tacitly conceded their mistakes towards the end of the 1960s by starting to support immigration control, although still remaining unusually tolerant of illegal immigrants in comparison with other countries. However, they refused to admit their own mistakes openly or to show a true sense of contrition which might have reconciled the British people to some extent to what had happened. Instead they pretended that everything had gone according to plan and everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Accordingly, to the man in the street, it appeared as though people living in comfortable circumstances in Belsize Park and Belgravia—and I say Belgravia because at the outset there were plenty of Conservatives who were just as contemptuous of the fears of the people as there were people on the Left—were looking down on, and disregarding the genuine fears of, people in Birmingham. Bolton, Bradford and Brixton. Whenever the latter objected, those at the top would intimidate them with a threat of ever more draconian race relations laws.
I believe that is why Mrs. Thatcher struck such a responsive chord when she spoke of people feeling swamped. Mrs. Thatcher was absolutely right. A great many people do feel swamped and quite a high proportion actually are swamped.

1105
I have never felt swamped nor, I suppose, have many of your Lordships. I live in a pleasant part of London. A great many Middle Eastern people have come there in recent years, but they are transient—or so one believes. We have a number of Asian shopkeepers and West Indian council workers who do an absolutely first-class job. They are agreeable and pleasant people and there is absolutely no problem whatsoever; but my part of London is not necessarily characteristic.
I remember an old lady whom I met who was born and brought up in West Ealing, who told me that the place where she lived had been transformed out of all recognition. So in anticipation of today's debate I went last week to Southall to see for myself. When I arrived I stood and did a count of the passers-by. Of the first 100 83 were Asian and two West Indian. As I got further into the town the proportion of English people dropped to about 10 per cent. I found it as a matter of fact a very attractive place; the shops were bright and full of delicious looking Indian confectionery, the fruit and vegetable stalls were doing good business, the women looked charming in their saris and the children were well dressed and well behaved. But the fact is that it was not England as the people who were born and brought up there knew it. They felt strangers in their own district. This is not an isolated instance.
It is all very well for me to enjoy this colourful and exotic ambience but what about the people who have been born and brought up there and have had the place changed without their consent? Suppose the boot were on the other foot and that 18½ million English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, plus 10 and one-third million people from the West Indies and Africa had gone to settle in the Indian sub-Continent over the past 30 years and that their numbers were forecast to increase to between 53 and 57 million by the year 2000 as a result of further immigration and a higher birth rate than the indigenous population's. The Indians, the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis would be up in arms, and understandably and rightly so.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, has it not occured to the noble Lord that that is exactly what we did do in the British Empire in the
1106
imperial days. We did go in, we did colonise and did totally change, and we were rather resented for it, but in a very different way from the way the noble Lord is describing.
Lord MONSON: Yes, my Lords, of course we did, but that is the past; the noble Baroness is talking about the 19th century. I am sure she would agree when I say that I do not think there were ever more than 100,000 British in India at any one time. It is a rather different matter from the equivalent of 50 million or so. We have not had that impact on Indian society.
My Lords, we have had much criticism of the "numbers game", but the numbers game is no game at all, it is the very essence of the problem. There are two extreme positions it is possible to take on immigration. At one extreme you have the National Front and people of that ilk who believe that nobody should be allowed to live in this country at all unless they can prove they are of 100 per cent. Anglo Saxon or possibly Celtic origin. At the other extreme you have the Young Liberals and other groups on the Left who believe that the country ought to be totally open to up to 1,000 million people. Indeed, that view was much more widely heard 15 or more years ago. Any position in between does involve the numbers game; so what are acceptable numbers?
One of the famous incantations of the open door lobby is that we have absorbed other waves of immigrants before without any problems, so why not this one? The answer is that this wave of immigration bears no relation to any previous influx. It is quite without precedent in its sheer size and also without precedent in the relative educational standards of the immigrants in relation to the rest of the population and in the relative birth rate in relation to that of the indigenous population. Virtually nobody in this country, I believe, would have any objection to the entry of students, tourists, businessmen, people who come to work on short-term contracts, just as British people go to work on short-term contracts in Africa and in the Gulf.
Very few people, apart from a few extremists, have ever objected to refugees. Of course, in the past we have happily

1107
accepted Jewish, Polish and Hungarian refugees from totalitarian and bloodthirsty régimes. The great tragedy of the excessive immigration that took place in the 'fifties and early 'sixties is that it made British people less willing than they have traditionally been to accept Asians fleeing from the murderous régime of General Amin and other Asians fleeing from the almost equally appalling régime of the successors of Ho Chi Minh. I do not think, either, that people would ever have objected to a modest number of immigrants other than refugees. When you ask me who I would include in this modest number I would think that the ex-Serviceman referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, would have high priority.
It may be pertinent to refer to the subject of Kenya at this point, because Kenya is frequently cited as being a model multi-racial society which not only Rhodesia but other people should follow. Kenya is a most impressive country in some ways. It is a long time since I have been there, but I was certainly impressed when I did go. But multi-racial in a true sense it is not. The permanent European population of Kenya is now down to 15,000. (There are many contract workers, but they do not count). I doubt that the Asian population exceeds 50,000. The total population of Kenya is 13 million. Therefore, the immigrant population is a mere one half of 1 per cent. That type of multiracialism, of course, creates no problems for anyone. The minority races are small and are declining because the indigenous Europeans admit that there is little future for their children there and no future for their grandchildren. So, the numbers are declining and they present no problem of any sort to anyone. The Africans can afford to be magnanimous and elect one European and one Asian to Parliament.
I have spoken previously about the 1 per cent rule. I believe that any country can positively benefit from absorbing a strongly differing cultural group so long as it does not exceed 1 per cent. by very much. Once one goes above that figure problems start. My feelings as regards that rule stem partly from intuition and partly from the experience of other countries. The larger the nucleus of the differing cultural group, the more of a magnet it is to those
1108
who want to come in from poorer countries. I do not think that anyone can deny that Britain will remain relatively richer to most of the new Commonwealth for many generations to come. The larger the group is, the easier it is to be discreetly absorbed within it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, gave many examples of the tremendous lengths people would go to to get round the controls.
Furthermore, the larger the group the more likely it is to demand special dispensations, which are quite reasonable from the point of view of the members of the group. At this stage some of your Lordships may say, "What about Rhodesia? Has not the minority there been granted special dispensations?" That is perfectly true. But, for all the fine words that we shall hear about a multiracial democracy, my sad prediction is that within 10 years of a new Government being elected in Rhodesia, the minority population will have shrunk from its present 300,000—that is to say 270,000 Europeans plus about 30,000 Asians and people of mixed race—down to about 50,000, whatever Government come to power. This will happen faster if the Patriotic Front get in. It will not be due to any bad faith on the part of Bishop Muzorewa, the Reverend Sithole, or indeed the Patriotic Front leaders: it will be due to the inexorable pressures of an exploding population. People simply have not realised the de-stabilising effect that the population explosion will have worldwide.
It is ironic that we should be encouraging a multiracial society at a time when almost every country in the world is becoming more homogeneous and less cosmopolitan. It is sad, but it is so; it seems to be the human norm. The other day the New Statesman published an article showing how the Common Market was discreetly changing rules to prevent immigration. The Germans have 250,000 illegal immigrants about whom they are worried stiff.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is aware that he has not altogether carried the House with him in taking the discussion away from the rules and on to the subject of Rhodesia and the Common Market?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I did not want Rhodesia to be quoted against me and so I simply mentioned it to save other noble Lords the trouble of doing so. The Gulf States are practically the only true—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, they have nothing to do with it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will bear with me. My point of view has not been heard much in the House today. The Gulf States—which are perhaps the only true growth area in the world—attract labour, fellow Moslems, from Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, but they take great care not to give them citizenship rights. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may ask how I can reconcile my libertarian principles with opposition to large scale immigration.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. He has spoken for 17 minutes. Many speeches have been made. I wonder whether he would be kind to the House and be as quick as possible, as we have many more speeches to hear.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I quite appreciate that. I am just about to wind up. I make no apologies for being a
1110
nationalist rather than an internationalist. I believe that nationalism runs with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Robert Ardrey put it rather more bluntly. In referring to the claims made by internationalists he spoke of "sentimentality and self-delusion". I am fortified in my support from perhaps an unexpected quarter. One of the most powerful defences that I have read of the right of a nation to decide who shall and who shall not come to its shores, in other words, the right of a nation to discriminate, came from the pen of that world famous and almost universally-respected liberal, the late Don Salvador de Madariaga. I am not ashamed to find myself in such company.
I want to see goodwill and harmony among the different peoples of this earth—the different races, cultures and linguistic groups—just as much as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and his friends. But I believe sincerely that this is most likely to be achieved if the separate peoples in question do not tread on one another's toes. Whatever the criticisms of this White Paper—some of which are possibly valid—the proposals it contains, if implemented, would go some way towards ensuring that the toes of the British people are trodden on rather less often than has been the case in recent years. For that reason I support the Government.
10.7 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who preceded me, except to correct him on one fact. There are now about two to three times as many Europeans living in Kenya as there were before independence. Is it not remarkable that in the latest election in Kenya one of the white citizens of Kenya was elected a Member of Parliament by a massive majority from an almost entirely African electorate?
Lord MONSON: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that three-quarters of the Europeans at present in Kenya are on short-term contracts and are not permanent residents?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, no, I would not agree with that. One cannot judge the time that they will spend there, but it is a very common feature of black independent Africa for there to be far more Europeans living in those countries today than there were before independence.
I pass to a much more pleasant task, which is to congratulate very warmly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on his maiden speech. As my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead said, I hope that he will not have to speak on this subject again. As one who was brought up in Yorkshire and who is honoured to be an honorary member of the University of Bradford at present, may I assure him that he has a very long way to go before he will be accepted as a Yorkshireman. This also applies to my noble friend Lord Chitnis who will be an "off-corned-on" for several generations to come and the right reverend Prelate's missionary work will be in vain.
I shall now address myself for a moment or two—and it will be only a moment or two—to the Government Front Bench. Several times on many subjects which we have debated in this House I have pointed out what seems to me to be self-evident: that the present Government are constantly acting in defiance of accepted Conservative principles. We have heard talk about arranged marriages. How many hereditary Peers would there he in this House today if there had not been
1112
arranged marriages through the ages?—on that side of the House in particular. We have heard talk about rolling back the frontiers of the State. Can the frontiers of the State become more intimate than they are shown to be in the intentions of the White Paper which we are discussing today? Is it enough for the Government to talk about rolling hack the frontiers of the State when it comes to the protection of welfare and social facilities, but pointing forward the frontiers of the State when it comes to the personal life of married people?
Again the party opposite has always claimed to be a party of the family, and yet look at these sordid little provisions in the White Paper on the entry of widowed or elderly parents and grandparents! Can we not convince the Government that there are cultures and societies where the value of the family, and particularly of the extended family, is still preciously held and where it apparently fits in with their own desire that the family should look after its own, rather than the State?
Finally on this section, the Government claim to be the protector of the self-employed. Has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to the protest made by the Chinese Association in this country on clause 35 in his White Paper, under which nobody is allowed to enter this country on the basis of self-employment with less than £100,000? According to the Chinese—and they must be only one of several communities in this situation—if nobody is to be allowed to enter the country on the basis of self-employment with less than £100,000, that very valuable section of our self-employed businesses will simply disappear.
Twice before—and I want to address this specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—at Question Time I have asked the noble Lord a specific question, and on each occasion he has avoided an answer. The question is simply this: In the Conservative Manifesto, as has already been mentioned from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Birk, this sentence was included:
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed

1113
And then the Manifesto goes on:
"and their opportunities ought to be equal too".
I have asked the noble Lord to try to equate that pledge on which his party was elected to government with the measures that are included in this White Paper. Is it not obvious that if there is a conflict—as surely there must be—then the Government have taken the wrong path? If the Government believe in the pledge they gave to the nation—and I know that the noble Lord has said to me before that they also pledged to cut down immigration, but surely that is not the answer—which I have just quoted, then this way of cutting down immigration, by making separate categories of citizens, is not the way of honourable fulfilment of that election pledge.
In my view—and I no more than summarise the whole weight of argument throughout this debate—this White Paper can be described in three words: it is racialist; it is sexist; and it is illegal. The argument on its racial character has been fully explored by my noble friend Lord Pitt and others. All I would say on that is that I believe that this Government are doing what other Governments have done before. There can be a case for the control of immigration; that case must not be mixed up with race or colour.
The argument on sexism has been more than fully put by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, and also in the remarkable speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. All I would say is that the kind of sexism which is apparent in this Paper reminds me of the Hitlerian description of the role of woman of the 1930s, Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
On the last point, that of illegality, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, made such a fine speech, I have only one point to add to what he said on the European Commission of Human Rights. Have the Government considered their position in regard not just to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not just the European Commission of Human Rights, but their position on the Helsinki Agreement? I remind them of what they are pledged to according to the Helsinki Agreement:
"The participating States will examine favourably and on the basis of humanitarian considera-
1114
tions requests for exit or entry permits from persons who have decided to marry a citizen from another participating State".
It goes on:
"The participating States will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family, with special attention being given to requests of an urgent character, such as requests submitted by persons who are ill or old. They will deal with applications in this field as expeditiously as possible".
I simply ask the Minister, as did Lord Scarman, whether the Government believe that the proposals contained in this White Paper can be equated with the pledge we have given as parties to the Helsinki Agreement. We rightly condemn breaches of the Helsinki Agreement when we point them out in the case of the Soviet Union and other nations. Are we not in these proposals breaking our solemn pledged international word, and are the Government content, satisfied and happy that that is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn by the rest of the world, and by the citizens of this country, with regard to the proposals they are now making?
10.18 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, as the 20th speaker in this debate I am reminded of the old saying, "Patience is a virtue. Catch it if you can"—sometimes in a woman, but I will not say what the end is. Like my noble friend Lord Belstead, I have listened to every speech, so we can both claim some patience. At the outset, I wish to pay tribute to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford which was magnificent and I hope we shall often hear him. I have some association with Bradford, in that one of my relations is at the university there and I would confirm everything he said about the community, the variety of people, in Bradford and the way in which they manage to work together most successfully. As I say, I hope we shall hear from the right reverend Prelate many times in the future.
I was also much impressed by Lord Belstead's speech. I am one of those in my party who has been anxious and rather nervous about the rules in the White Paper and I came to the debate today in a rather uncertain frame of mind. Having

1115
listened to all the speeches, I have been tremendously impressed by what Lord Belstead said, and we must remember as we debate this matter in this House and in another place that we are debating something which is not yet decided. The Home Secretary has said that he is open to conviction about changes; and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that himself today. In the debate in the other place, which I read with great interest, Mr. Merlyn Rees said:
"I have always believed, and I am not prepared to change my belief in opposition, that there should be control of immigration".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/79; col. 266.]
Therefore it seems to me that although undoubtedly there are divisions on how this should be done, there is a consensus of opinion that there is a problem that ought to he tackled.
I was tremendously impressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she put the case—which is a very strong one—on the subject of sex discrimination. I hope that the Government will look at this question because it is something they could well pay attention to, and it might very well improve the Paper if they could make some alterations. The description given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, was most impressive. She told us of her three years in the Home Office when she listened to, and had discussions with, immigration officers who were working under very difficult conditions. I think it important that all these matters should be looked at very carefully by the Government. The two noble and learned Lords who spoke about the legal aspect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, both made very substantial points, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the Home Secretary will look at these.
I want to ask only two questions, and these refer to the refugees. It is made quite clear that with regard to refugees coming to this country the rules will continue to be the same as they are now. I understand from the Standing Conference on Refugees, with which I am in very close touch, that there is some anxiety that this position should be made quite clear in whatever documents are sent out.
1116
Furthermore, refugees entering this country for asylum should be told of the organisations, which are mostly voluntary, which can help them in their difficulties. In addition, the revised rules should state that if there is any doubt about a refugee the immigration officer should consult the representative in London of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the United Kingdom immigrants should be advised about that. As I think the noble Lord knows, there are many organisations which deal with refugees, and they are, I understand, rather deeply concerned that the refugees coming here should be able to get all the information they need.
I do not propose to make a speech. Everything that can be said has been said, and I feel encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. I am sure that he will be able to answer many of the questions. I do not know whether there is to be a Division, but if there is, I shall go into the Lobby with the Government in a more encouraged and a more cheerful frame of mind than when I came to the debate.
10.23 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like to begin what is the final stage of the debate by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for a most constructive speech and for showing how positive an approach can be adopted. I find it quite incredible that anyone who listened to that speech could make the kind of speech that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monson. What I think we on these Benches find so detestable about the Government's proposals, in addition to their content, is the way that they were brought about. To us this was one of the nastier pranks included in the Conservative Party manifesto to obtain the votes of that part of the electorate which is openly, or covertly, racialist; and having obtained those votes, the Government feel obliged to fulfil their immoral obligations. In my view, the pledge should never have been in the manifesto, and certainly it is unlikely to represent the view of many people who voted Conservative.
At this stage I do not want to go into all the arguments; I certainly would not dare to do so. I want only to emphasise what I believe to be the main reason why the

1117
Government should withdraw the proposals in the White Paper, and if they do not, to state the reasons why we appeal tonight to noble Lords to divide against this unacceptable White Paper.
The main reasons, my Lords, are these. The period of massive immigration into this country is over. The White Paper proposals are based on an illogicality. According to the Government, the first aim is to reduce the numbers coming
"… to this rather crowded island with its relatively high unemployment".
This was the view set out by the Minister of State at the Home Office in a recent article. This is an echo of the highly-emotive appeal used by the Prime Minister at the election, when she scaremongered the electorate by referring to the risk of this country being swamped by immigrants. I do not believe that anyone believes that, except possibly Mr. Enoch Powell. That is a myth. There is no question of swamping. The Government proposals will affect a few thousand people a year, if that. Moreover, if there are abuses of the rules, the Government have the power to deal with them.
As to unemployment, we do not seem to have much difficulty in accommodating, annually, 15,000 to 20,000 Australians who take a paid working holiday here each year—and why not? I welcome them coming here, as I welcome the fact that my daughter was able to work for one whole year in the Royal Hospital at Perth. Why not? This is not the sort of thing about which we ought to be troubling ourselves. The arguments about unemployment are just as specious as those which claim that we live in an overcrowded island. That is just not true. We shall easily absorb 10,000 boat people; it is right that we should do so, and we look forward to doing so. Since 1968 many more people have left Britain every year than have come to live here. Those are the facts. The myth has been put round that we are overcrowded, that every person who comes here will take a British job, and so on. It is not true.
In many places, if we had not had the Ugandan Asians we would not have the services and the shops that we have in Lambeth, in Wandsworth and in other places, and in many places in the Provinces.
1118
But above all these arguments there is the very important question of our international obligations, and the racially and sexually discriminatory nature of the White Paper proposals. I think that the speech that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was quite remarkable. If the Government do not take heed of that brilliant analysis of our obligations and the way in which these rules are destined to breach them, then I think the Government are going to be in serious trouble. The speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will be quoted all over the country; it will be quoted internationally, and it will be quoted quite rightly. I feel very strongly that we must not get into a situation where we even risk breaching our international obligations.
I do not know why the Government are obsessed with the possibility of arranged marriages being used as a vehicle to gain entry into the United Kingdom. In this process they offend the culture of which the genuinely-arranged marriage is an important feature, and where the system is abused the Home Secretary already has power to act. I believe it is quite wrong to erect more and more restrictions, which are bound to inflict hardship on some innocent people; and, despite the concessions by the Home Secretary to confer the right on a woman born here to be joined by her husband and on a woman born abroad who has a United Kingdom-born parent to be joined by her husband, these rules are very discriminatory indeed, and I do not believe they ought to have a place within our statutory law. They discriminate on grounds of sex because in future husbands and male fiancés are not to be given the same absolute right of entry as wives and female fiancées have and which men had until 1969 and from 1974 till now.
I believe that the points made by my noble friend Lady Seear, with her experience of the Asian women, ought also to be taken in hand by the Government. She is speaking from experience, and I believe that these are matters which ought to change the views of the Government on the sexist and racialist discrimination in the rules. I would finally plead with the Government to consider the weight of opinion in this House, and outside this House, on these rules and regulations before they proceed any further. It is a

1119
widespread weight of opinion against the Government. These rules, if enacted in their present form, will only pander to the racist element in our community. At most, they will reduce immigration by a minimal amount. I hope that we shall be joined in the Lobby tonight by all those who feel strongly about discrimination on the grounds of race or sex, and who believe that our main task now is, not to be fiddling around with a few numbers but to try to effect some positive racial harmony in our mixed society, as the right reverend Prelate led us to understand. That is an aim which will be frustrated by this sort of legislation, and the attitude of mind which this sort of legislation reflects. It is not too late for the Government to change course. They could change course before we divide; and if they really substantially change course, we might have to make a quick decision.
10.32 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this debate has ranged widely and, at this hour, I will try to reply to as many of the points raised as your Lordships' patience will allow, but, I hope, no more. Before doing anything else, may I express my appreciation of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. I see from the right reverend Prelate's career that he has moved, as it were, by degrees towards the North of England and now I think Yorkshire is very lucky to be able to count him one of their number. I know that the right reverend Prelate did not agree with a lot of what I had to say. But that is no matter. He made the most wonderful speech and I am glad to have been here to hear it. I join with other noble Lords in saying that it must not be another four years before he comes back to speak in this House again.
May I register disagreement with the view that has been expressed, inherent as it is in the very sweeping Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking the House to accept this evening, that the Government's White Paper is not the right approach at all to our immigration policy? I think that that does not take account of three things. First, it runs counter—there is no question of that—to the view of the Select Committee on
1120
Race Relations and Immigration which reported 18 months ago; and, although I admired the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has just made to the House, he made it, if I may say so, as though the Select Committee had never reported at all. The members of that Select Committee wished the Government to make it unequivocally clear that there should be no further major primary immigration into this country.
These are five Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party and five Members of Parliament from the Labour Party and, judging from the names, they had their feet planted pretty firmly on the ground. I reckon that they had in mind when they said that they based their recommendation on the employment and economic situation of this country, the sort of things which two former Ministers in my party who have spoken in this debate today—my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson and my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith—had in mind also in making their speeches. In this case, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can be asking the House to vote totally against a White Paper which proposes rules which are firmer in a number of critical areas, and tries to make rules clearer—which the noble Lord asked for in his speech—and easier to operate for the very hard-pressed officers of our Immigration Service.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has published this White Paper so that the views of Parliament can be expressed. And your Lordships, who always are fair, have been, again and again in your speeches, good enough to express your appreciation that at least we have gone about matters in that way. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood is quite right that it is the Government's intention that points made in the debate will be carefully considered before new rules are laid before Parliament; so I will not rehearse the three particular areas where my right honourable friend has already rethought proposals, except to pick out one in particular. That is the combination of the dependency criterion, together with the standard-of-living criterion for the entry of dependants of families; and when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, wondered who would check on an applicant's circumstances, this is something which is done sometimes at present in

1121
order to see whether or not an entrant to this country has a financial reason for wanting to return to his country of origin. None the less, let me leave that aside. It is on the clash, as people see it, of these two criteria for dependants coming into this country that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also said that he would look most seriously again.
I find also that views put forward by noble Lords do not take account of a third ground; the difficulty of this whole subject. I can only envy the splendid confidence of noble Lords opposite and on the Liberal Benches, that their views are right, and perish the thought of anyone who may think otherwise! Let me remind your Lordships gently that it was not always thus. My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, with his experience, reminded us that it was in 1969 that the Leader of the Opposition today (the then Home Secretary) took a view that there should be a ban on Commonwealth husbands and fiancés. Then there was the removal of the ban in 1974—something which I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, we made crystal clear in our manifesto that We intended to remove. Then in March 1977 the previous Government changed the rules in order to try to prevent marriages of convenience from being used as a means of immigration. They made that change in the rules solely by reference to men trying to enter in order to marry; an approach to the problem which the Government of today are also adopting and which the Opposition calls sexually discriminatory.
My Lords, I am not going to bandy hard words that the Opposition feel able to use that expression for an approach to a problem which they themselves had to adopt two years ago. The previous Government and the present Government find themselves—if I may use a homely term—in the same boat on this matter. The present legislation, which entitles a woman to acquire her husband's nationality, if he is one of our citizens, to acquire the right of abode on marriage, for wives and children of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1st January 1973 to be able to come and go as they wish, placed women in a wholly different position and a more favourable position than men so far as immigration matters are concerned. The position therefore that both the previous Government and
1122
this Government find themselves in is that we need a new law of nationality. As I said to your Lordships earlier on this afternoon, the previous Government's Green Paper on the subject warned of considerable difficulties which are going to have to be overcome in this regard. But this Government are committed to legislation on nationality and my right honourable friend intends to publish a White Paper during the course of next year.
May I add on this general area of marriages that I believe the requirement that the parties to a marriage should have met if they wish to live in this country is a reasonable one. It is a requirement which, incidentally, can be satisfied by arranged marriages. So contrary to the suggestion of some noble Lords, the new rules will not be an attack on the reputable Asian custom of the arranged marriage. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to girls who had been her students and who had gone back to contract arranged marriages. Precisely, my Lords. A girl who is to contract an arranged marriage would naturally meet her future husband, either by going back—if that is what the noble Baroness meant—to the country from which she had come, or by meeting her husband through an arranged marriage within the United Kingdom. It is not, I suggest, a natural thing for these marriages to be contracted across the world by a man who we know, time and time again, has only one concern in his mind, and that is to get into the United Kingdom.
Other changes are going to be made in the rules in a number of critical areas, making them firmer. The need for action on these lines is emphasised, I think, by the results of the over-stayers survey which I mentioned to your Lordships earlier. An essential part of an effective after-entry control is to prevent evasion by passengers who say that they are coming on a temporary permit and then turn their visit into a permanent stay.
A great many points which your Lordships have made this afternoon are relevant here and, if I may, I will spend a moment or two endeavouring to reply to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked about the position of someone who wishes to enter, marry and leave. It will remain open, of course, under the new proposals for any fiancé who persuades

1123
the immigration officer that he intends to return with his wife to his own country, to enter the country as a visitor, under paragraph 54.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Perhaps I did not make it quite clear. I was really talking about the man who comes and is going to marry a British woman in this country and wants to stay, rather than if he comes as a visitor, has to go back and then come back to marry. It was a question of whether he could marry and stay, not to go back.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in that case he falls within the rules as they have been drafted within the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned, in passing as it were, the position as he saw it of what are called "working holidaymakers from the Commonwealth"—young people we have all met, very often in large numbers, usually globetrotting, doing a job, getting some experience and going home. The noble Lord, if I may say so, is labouring under a misapprehension if he thinks the rules prevent working holiday-makers from the Commonwealth indulging in that.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I did not make that point. I made the point that if we can afford to absorb 15,000 to 20,000 every year of these people, then you cannot use the argument that by increasing immigration by 2,000 you are going to do people out of jobs.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am sorry, my Lords, perhaps I am getting a little tired at the end of the day: perhaps I got the noble Lord wrong. Perhaps, on the other hand, the Government have to take account of the whole scene and to decide on the number of people at any one time, considering the employment situation in the country at any one time. If I may say so, I think that on those grounds the noble Lord is not on to a very good point.
I also think, if I may say so—and in a moment I am going to concede to your Lordships areas where I think the Government ought to be looking again—that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and (with great temerity) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, are perhaps being a little
1124
hard when they criticise the provisions governing au pair girls. In future it is true there will be lower and upper age limits—17 and 25—and the au pair scheme will be restricted to nationals of Western Europe, including Malta, Cyprus and Turkey. They will not be able to take employment, that is to say, outside what they are doing—that is, living with a family in this country—nor to spend more than two years in an au pair capacity.
However, the point is that this restriction is not new in principle. The previous Government issued work permits for domestic employment only to Western Europeans. I have been asked what evidence there is of exploitation of the au pair arrangements by girls who are not Western Europeans. We do not keep figures, but since the issue of permits for resident domestics was restricted by the previous Government earlier this year to Western Europeans, there has been a great deal of pressure to admit girls as au pair girls from the countries so excluded. One can only concede that this is in order—I have some understanding and sympathy with what girls are trying to do in this respect—to get around the restriction which the previous Government felt it right to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about rule 89, which covers the question of regular attendance at a course of further or higher education. The Home Office already asks for information about a student's past attendance record. This is normally readily provided by the institutions concerned, and paragraph 98 of the rules mentions this. The rules for students in this White Paper, so far as their length of stay is concerned, will simply reflect what is perfectly normal practice, with proper provision for progression if somebody is going on from a course to a higher course, but with a four-year time limit for what my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith called the perpetual student.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord did not quite answer my point. What I said was that it had been the practice so far to make checks every year. But now under rule 89 it was possible for the Government to demand information about a student's attendance at his lectures at any time throughout the

1125
academic year. I said that this was going to impose an additional burden on the universities and colleges at a time when their funds were being severely cut, and I asked how they were supposed to do that.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said. This is precisely what a debate like this is important for, and I assure the noble Lord that I will draw that to my right honourable friend's attention. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, raised the case of a student who wished to undertake yet further education, after acquiring skills for which an award had been given in the expectation by the award-givers that the graduate would use those skills for the good of his or her own country. None the less, my answer is that, obviously, an extension for such further higher education could, of course, be applied for at the Secretary of State's discretion.
May I refer to two cases which were raised by noble Lords which, certainly, we will look at as sympathetically as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, raised the question of pupil nurses who might be caught by paragraph 91 of the White Paper. The Government are considering, as sympathetically as possible, the case for altering this paragraph so as to exempt nurses in that respect. As regards the case which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, put, we are certainly considering the view which the noble Lord put so far as paragraph 39 is concerned, although I think that the exemption for which the noble Lord was asking comes a little near to claiming that anyone could come in as a writer or an artist. But it might be possible to allow writers or artists to take employment acceptable to the Department of Employment, which, of course, would be in line with what students do, and I assure the noble Lord that we are considering this as closely as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, asked me a series of questions of a detailed nature, and at this hour perhaps she will allow me to write to her. I undertake to try to do so as swiftly as possible. In answer to noble Lords who spoke about the European Convention, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who asked about the Helsinki Final Act, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place the Govern-
1126
ment have, of course, considered collectively the full implications of the proposals which are in the White Paper, including the question raised today about international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that we have strong arguments with which to justify those proposals if they should be challenged.
Finally, may I give this assurance to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, who asked me whether it would be made clear that there is no change in the effect of the rules. The way in which the relevant paragraph works is that we are seeking to make it clear that a refugee or asylum claim has precedence over other parts of the immigration rules, if they should be agreed by Parliament, and that where such an application is well founded the person is not to be removed to the country in which he or she has a genuine fear of persecution. This is already our practice, but the drafting of the current provisions contained in the rules has been criticised and we want to make it clearer. I hope that what I have been able to say to my noble friend may be helpful to those organisations which do such valuable work in this field.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford said that the seeds of success for good relations within communities can spring only from what he called "person-to-person contact". I agree, but I think the right reverend Prelate would be the first to say to me that for that person-to-person contact to be fruitful both parties must make contact with as open minds as possible. To achieve this, the Government have what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson called a weighty responsibility to assure people that men are not coming here by exploiting the immigration rules and that immigration is being controlled not only firmly but as fairly as possible, in line with what was recommended only 18 months ago by the 10 Members of Parliament on the Select Committee.
Any democratic Government must have regard to people's anxieties on these points. This is why we said at the General Election that firm immigration control is essential for good community relations. I believe that upon the draft rules set out in this White Paper we can continue to build the united society that we all desire,

1127
and I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which is before your Lordships' House tonight.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but before the noble Lord sits down will he comment on a point which I hold very strongly about children: the question of sole responsibility. I have raised the point with umpteen previous Ministers, so it will not matter if the noble Lord is in difficulty over answering me tonight. All I hope is that he will undertake to ask his right honourable friend to look at whether the word "sole" can be changed to "main".
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have got the point. I shall certainly draw it personally to the attention of my right honourable friend, and I shall see to it that the noble Lord is written to either by myself or by the Minister responsible, again as soon as possible.
10.53 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships for very many minutes at this late hour. I must echo first the congratulations which have already been expressed to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford on a most notable maiden speech—one which was imbued with humanity and love of his fellow men, which one would have hoped would have found its way into the immigration rules.
The right reverend Prelate said one or two things which the Minister obviously did not take note of as he was speaking. He talked about the effect on the minds of Asians of the proposals now before your Lordships' House which make them feel as though they are second-class citizens. This point was echoed by a number of other noble Lords, including in particular my noble friend Lord Chitnis and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who showed quite graphically the effect which these proposals have on the minds of the ethnic minorities, a question which has been totally ignored by the noble Lord in his winding-up.
He asked why we had put down a Motion which was against this White Paper, lock, stock and barrel. Well, I do
1128
not know any mechanism by which your Lordships' House can condemn half a White Paper, but as far as I am concerned I can find nothing good to say about it. It warrants the epithets which are in our Motion, and I think that has been borne out fully by the discussion we have had.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says that we should have looked at the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations in another place. We have done that and we noticed that the Government have been selective in the recommendations which they have chosen to implement. In particular, they have persistently ignored the pleas from the Indian community that the United Kingdom passport-holders, who were originally resident in East Africa and who escaped temporarily to the Indian sub-continent, should now be allowed to come here, instead of being restricted to 500 a year, so that the queue has built up, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is well aware, to some four years' waiting time for people who are our own citizens to be allowed to enter this country.
I wonder whether the noble Lord will look seriously at the debate which we have had today, when he accuses those of us who have spoken against the proposals of being inconsistent. The noble Lord said that the law on nationality is needed: we agree with him. My noble friend Lady Seear reiterated this yet again. Of course, it was one of the points that was principally emphasised by the Home Secretary in his Leicester speech as being the first priority that a Conservative Government would take note of when they came into office; and yet we have the cart before the horse. We have these rules, as my noble friend said, preceding the law of nationality on which they should be based.
I thought the most devastating attack on these proposals came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to dismiss them as easily as he did. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, went through in some detail the articles in the European Convention on Human Rights which are going to be violated by these rules. The noble Lord persists in ignoring the warnings that have been given to him from such high authority. He must realise perfectly well that, unless we alter these rules before they reach the statute book, there will be cases submitted;

1129
it is not a case of "if ", as I said during his speech, but "when" a case is brought. When that case is brought, on the advice that we have been given this evening it is perfectly certain to fail and after two years or so we shall finish up back where we started, but with the opprobrium of the whole of Europe.
My Lords, we cannot allow such proposals to go forward from this House. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, rightly said, we are the guardians
and sentinels of the honour of our people. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will join us in the Division Lobby in voting against this White Paper.
10.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Peart, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Banks, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Seear, B.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Bradford, Bp.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

Stone, L.

Byers, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Castle, L.

Lockwood, B

Underhill, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wade, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Aldington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Allerton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Redesdale, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Reigate, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gowrie, E.

Renton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray, L.

Renwick, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rochdale, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hives, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cathcart, E.

Holderness, L.

Sandford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kimberley, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Davidson, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swinfen, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Margadale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Exeter, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trenchard, V.

Faithfull, B.

Monson, L.

Vaizey, L.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vernon, L.

Ferrier, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vivian, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Galloway, E.

Onslow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

DEACONESSES AND LAY WORKERS (PENSIONS) MEASURE
Laid before the House (pursuant to Section 4 of the Church of England (Powers) Act 1919), and to be printed.
  HARINGEY TEST CENSUS
  HARINGEY TEST CENSUS
  IMMIGRATION: ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS
  IMMIGRATION: ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS
  MR. BORGUEZ: DEPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  MR. BORGUEZ: DEPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSING GRANTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSING GRANTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ACTION ON HOUSING SITUATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ACTION ON HOUSING SITUATION
  WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL: PROVISION FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
  WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL: PROVISION FOR THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
  THE MACFARLANE COMMITTEE
  THE MACFARLANE COMMITTEE
  DUCHESS OF KENT'S MILITARY HOSPITAL, CATTERICK: CONSULTANCIES
  DUCHESS OF KENT'S MILITARY HOSPITAL, CATTERICK: CONSULTANCIES
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: SPECIAL ADVISER
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: SPECIAL ADVISER