Sitting of 2 July 1981

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2)Bill
Lords amendments agreed to.
NORTHUMBRIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the policy of applying cash limits to the nationalised industries.
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the terms on which subventions are given to nationalised industries as regards earmarking of funds for capital and current expenditure.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): Ordinary market disciplines do not apply to the raising of finance by industry in public ownership. The amount of external finance, therefore, has to be determined by the Government. The limits set for each industry are derived from their medium-term objectives and take into account their investment programmes and their ability to generate finance for such investment internally. Government finance is not generally hypothecated to particular purposes.
    Mr. Whitney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. Does he think it surprising that chairmen of the various nationalised industries should undertake expensive and extensive political campaigns, apparently in conjunction with the relevant trade unions, to force the Government to relax their policies on public sector spending? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the case of British Railways, 1 per cent. less in wage increases could provide funds for a 5 per cent. increase in investment?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such campaigns are not only surprising but deplorable. I do not believe that the money obtained by nationalised industries,
    990
    from whatever source—whether through what they charge for their products or from elsewhere—should be spent in that way.
    The figure quoted by my hon. Friend is correct. Each 2 per cent. off wage costs in the nationalised industries generally would save about £250 million per annum. Each 1 per cent. off total costs would save about £300 million. That would give substantial scope for investment.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing concern about the practice of giving large amounts of taxpayers' money to nationalised industries without any policy guidelines or restrictions being set by the Government? That money could be used for excessive wage settlements. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share that concern?
    Mr. Brittan: I share the concern that money given to nationalised industries should be used sensibly. It is precisely because of our efforts to ensure that that happens that some nationalised industries are uncomfortable with our policies.
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House can do without the Chief Secretary's homilies addressed to the nationalised industries about what he calls political activities—considering that they are being politically assaulted in the most absurd and ideological way. Does the Chief Secretary agree that in the light of the experience of last year—and, to some extent, this year—in which he has had progressively to change EFLs for different and important nationalised industries, he has set the target at a ludicrously restrictive level? Is not the only effect of doing this to drive up prices faster in the nationalised industries than anywhere else? Indeed, last year prices increased by 22 per cent. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his EFL policy?
    Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticise us for having unrealistic EFLs and then criticise us for changing them. It is a strange sort of assault on the nationalised industries that increases planned investment from £4·5 billion in 1980–81 to £5·2 billion in each of the next three years. Many private concerns would like to experience that sort of assault.
    Mr. Renton: As every household and every company in the private sector separates clearly the money that it borrows on capital account from the money that it borrows on current account, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it would help if that were done much more visibly and clearly by nationalised industries? If that were done much more ostensibly, would it not help the British public and members of this honourable House to evaluate the performance of the nationalised industries' capital programmes?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that we could usefully make the distinction clearer. However, full figures for public corporations' current and capital expenditure are shown in the national income Blue Book. It may be that we should bring the distinction more to the fore.
    Mr. Dubs: Is it not a fact that the Government have been refusing nationalised industries opportunities to indulge in profitable capital investment? Does not that inevitably make the task of the nationalised industries more difficult? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that by following this policy the Government are indulging in a vendetta against nationalised industries?
    Mr. Brittan: I find it a strange sort of vendetta that increases by 15 per cent. the amount of money available to the nationalised industries. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No". In the investment of nationalised industries over the past decade there is no evidence to support the suggestion that genuine investment that can be productive has been starved by Government rationing.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Soleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has any proposals to reduce the rate of interest in the near future.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to take steps to reduce interest rates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It remains our objective to allow interest rates to fall further, but only as and when circumstances permit. United Kingdom interest rates are now lower than those in most other industrial countries.
    Mr. Soley: With the advantage of hindsight, does the Chancellor think that his tight money policy, which pushed up interest rates and attracted short-term foreign funds into an overvalued sterling, was largely responsible for the drastic domestic collapse of the British economy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that for one moment. With the advantage of hindsight I would say that the relative movement of United Kingdom and other countries' interest rates during the first half of the year represented an endorsement of the fiscal stance that I adopted in the Budget.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that MLR serves any useful purpose? Does he have any proposals for abolishing it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I explained in my Budget Statement, it is our intention to enable market forces to play a greater role in determining interest rates. Discussions on further improvements in monetary control are well advanced. The Bank has issued the final draft of the detailed provisions. When these are put into effect we shall aim to keep short-term interest rates within an unpublished band. It may then be appropriate to suspend the practice of publishing the MLR.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: As the Chancellor will still intervene on interest rates whatever may happn to MLR, what is the main factor in his policy on interest rates? Is it the exchange value of sterling, the behaviour of national income or the movement of monetary aggregates?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The factors that have an effect on interest rates are described in my Budget Statement. They are dependent primarily on monetary considerations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not have a target for the exchange rate. We believe that that should be determined principally by market forces.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the borrowing requirement were to be increased, that would lead inevitably to increased interest rates?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is the experience in other countries where
    992
    interest rates are significantly higher than in the United Kingdom. One of the contributory causes is the extent to which borrowing in those countries is higher than it is here.

    Public Sector Investment
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he assesses the value to the economy of investment in the public sector.
    Mr. Brittan: Investments in the public sector are assessed by the industry, department, or other public body which is making the investment, by comparing the costs and benefits using recognised investment appraisal techniques.
    Mr. Adley: In making these comparisons, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the essential difference between investment in industry and investment, for example, in the nation's transport infrastructure? Does he accept that, whereas cars, steel or coal can be imported from abroad if necessary, no one other than ourselves will modernise our transport infrastructure? Will he give me an assurance that this factor is taken into account?
    Mr. Brittan: That factor should be taken into account and is taken into account. That does not necessarily mean that any particular investment is justified. However, it is a relevant consideration.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister still believe in his crowding-out theory—that increases in public investment will crowd out private investment in the economy? How does he explain to the British people that with nearly 3 million unemployed we cannot afford to build more houses to reduce the housing waiting list, we cannot improve the railways and we cannot improve our rapidly deteriorating water and sewerage facilities? How can he explain to the public that the resources are not available for more public investment?
    Mr. Brittan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I lay no claim to the authorship of the crowding-out theory or of any other theory. However, if we increase public borrowing totals, the effect is to increase interest rates, which has an effect on the private sector. It is significant that the major call from industry in the past year has been for lower interest rates.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If one could take one specific example—
    Mr. Skinner: Ask a question. You are not writing for the Sunday Telegraph now.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —could I ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going to put his example in his question.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks that we are likely to obtain a good return on investment in electrification in British Rail, for example, so long as the average freight train crew on British Rail covers 11 miles a day?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has identified one major problem in British Rail. I think that he will welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

    993
    for Transport, which stressed the link between improvements in productivity and investment in electrification.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: In her speech to the CBI, the Prime Minister said that nationalised industries should be assessed on their performance rather than on their promises. Why are the Government penalising British Gas, for example, by selling off its most profitable and successful part? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cease to blame nationalised industries and instead regard them as sensible outlets for investment during the present slump?
    Mr. Brittan: The justification for privatisation does not depend solely on the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

    Economic Policy
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans any new initiative to improve the economy.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's economic policies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue with present policies to bring inflation down, and lay the foundations for sustainable economic growth.
    Mr. Canavan: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of the remarks made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the disastrous social consequences of the Government's monetarist polocies—[Interruption.]—especially the social cuts, with over 2½ million unemployed, which could breed racial hatred and juvenile crime? When even an ex-Tory Prime Minister tells us that some public spending cuts are more damaging than the savings justify, is not it about time that even this Tory Chancellor changed course and tried to regenerate the economy by means of more public investment instead of less?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was proud to serve as a member of the Administration that was led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I still share entirely the same objectives as the right hon. Gentleman. However, like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have drawn quite different conclusions as a result of my experience.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am inquiring whether the use of the phrase "nut case" by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) when he referred to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) the ex-Prime Minister, is in order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the hon. Member will find that word in the list in "Erskine May".
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not want any proof of anything at all. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) wants to say something, I shall call him.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I was only seeking clarification as to whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was a nut case.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must try to maintain parliamentary standards in this place. I deprecate such terms.
    Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the crude abuse by Conservative Members about the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was not the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday the most damaging indictment of Government economic policies?
    Is it not the case that far from there being any question of economic recovery round the corner there are continued redundancies, closures and short-time working, and British industry is being crippled?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are many signs—in the opposite sense to what the hon. Gentleman says—that recovery will be shortly under way. If one wishes to look for the causes of redundancy, I found some interesting examples when I visited the West Midlands, including the hon. Member's constituency, last week. I found that most businesses in that area were complaining at the increased redundancies following from the planned increase in expenditure by the West Midlands county council and the consequential rate increases.
    Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that when investments in the public sector, particularly in its infrastructure, which only the public sector can undertake, offer an economic rate of return, it is important that they should not be artificially held back by the effect of the recession on the PSBR?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has explained, that is why there has been a 15 per cent. increase, for example, in the projected capital spending, in real terms, on nationalised industries. To take one example, that is why British Telecommunications is expected, even in the public expenditure White Paper, to be spending more than £2 billion in each year up to 1983–84. That can hardly be described as a policy of holding back public sector investment.
    Mr. Jay: Which of his policies does the Chancellor of the Exchequer feel has been most successful so far?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Centrally, it is the policy of reducing the rate of inflation, which has fallen by 10 per cent. in the last 12 months—
    Mr. Canavan: Tell us what it was when the Conservative Government came in?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: —alongside a 5 per cent. reduction in the interest rates. I am content to go on listing such examples for some time.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his call in a speech the other day for no more than a 5 per cent. increase in pay and salaries next year would do much for the economy? Is he now moving towards a form of voluntary incomes policy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, Sir. The experience of successive Governments of both parties has directly led to a rejection of that approach. It is clear that it is necessary for us to continue to improve our competitiveness and to reduce unit labour costs. For that purpose, moderation in pay settlements is essential in all parts of the economy. I was delighted that last week, in a broadcast commentary

    995
    on my speech, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) accepted that high pay settlements could have much to do with creating unemployment.
    Mr. Shore: May I come back to the original question? It is plain to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans and will not announce any new initiatives to improve the economy. With regard to his Birmingham speech, is it not the case that he is envisaging not anything to do with a more orderly way of trying to relate pay and prices together in this country but an unprecedented reduction in real earnings during the coming year?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that over the last three years, when there was no matching increase in output, real personal earnings rose by 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. while the income of the corporate sector fell by 25 per cent. In those circumstances there must be a matching change in the opposite direction, and as part of that, if we are to secure a reduction in unemployment, there is an overwhelmingly strong case for pay moderation. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would endorse in this House the plain proposition that unduly high pay settlements mean unduly high unemployment.

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to see a substantial improvement in the economy.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is now increasing evidence that output has stopped falling. The prospect is for some recovery over the next year or so. Progress will largely depend on the extent to which we continue to improve United Kingdom competitiveness through more effective control of domestic costs.
    Mr. Dormand: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that the further round of public expenditure cuts which he proposes could be self-defeating, even for the crazy economics of this Government? Will he comment on the reports that that is also the view of the Treasury? In view of recent developments, will he say whether he is revising monetary targets and at the same time proposing a return to high interest rates?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should imagine that I should want to do the last thing to which he referred. Announcements about monetary targets were made at the ordinary time and in the ordinary way. There is no truth in the suggestion that the case for reducing public expenditure is doubted in my Department. It is overwhelmingly clear from what is being done in other countries besides ours—for example, in Western Germany or Denmark—that there is clear recognition that unduly high public expenditure means unduly high interest rates, unduly high inflation and unduly high unemployment.
    Mr. Forman: Since it is vital that the chances of substantial economic recovery are not vitiated by lack of competitiveness and excessive pay settlements, will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the imaginative proposal for a wider economic forum which was contained in our manifesto at the last election? Can he say something today to give me and the House hope that we may act upon it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for example, the discussions which we have regularly with the National Economic Development Council are directed to such an end. I am anxious to find every opportunity of extending discussion about the link between unduly high pay settlements and unduly high unemployment and to take every opportunity of extending the case for improving our productivity and competitiveness.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider the claim which he has just made, that the most successful part of his policy has been the reduction in prices and the bringing down of inflation? Does he not agree with the Treasury's figures, which show that he was responsible for pushing up the index by 11 per cent. in his first year of office and by 6½ per cent. in the second year? Therefore, is he not now saying that the most succesful part of his policy is reducing the damage in price increases which he has imposed?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has got it precisely wrong. When we came into office the rate of inflation was rising fast and at the same time we were going through the consequences of the collapse of the last Government's pay policy, contributing to an explosion in pay settlements in the public and private sectors. It has taken us two years to overcome those handicaps, which we inherited from the last Administration.

    Overseas Investment
    Mr. Jim Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on present levels of overseas investment by United Kingdom financial institutions.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of portfolio and direct investment overseas by the United Kingdom financial institutions during the last 12 months, compared with the preceding two years.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Portfolio investment overseas has increased substantially since exchange controls were abolished in 1979. These investments will provide a source of valuable overseas income for the future. Figures for portfolio investment by institutions exclude banks, while complete figures for direct investment overseas are not available. Using available data, the information is as follows:

    United Kingdom Private Investment Overseas (net of disinvestment)

    £ million

    1978

    1979

    1980

    Portfolio investment by financial institutions other than banks

    720

    670

    2,250

    Direct investment by banks and insurance companies

    450

    900

    630

    Mr. Marshall: Does not the Financial Secretary accept that when real investment in this country is declining, the record level of investment overseas—now running at about £4 billion per year—shows how little faith the financial institutions have in the Government's ability to turn round the economy?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. Apart from the hon. Gentleman's confusion between portfolio and real

    997
    investment, he is also overlooking the fact that the increase in overseas investment bears no relation to the level of investment in this country, which is determined primarily by the return on investment. That is agreed by everyone, including the authors of the Wilson report, chaired by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson).
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Financial Secretary agree that withdrawal of capital is much more damaging to British industry than any withdrawal of labour? Will he condemn the banks and other financial institutions for failing to invest in Britain and British industries? In the light of the figures, will he change his policy on exchange control?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the announcement a fortnight ago by the mineworkers' pension fund that it proposed to take over at a cost of $265 million an American property company--Connecticut General Mortgage and Realty Investments. I suggest that he takes the matter up with the deputy chairman of the pension fund, Mr. Joe Gormley.
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the continuing high level of invisible exports emanating from financial institutions, whether by direct investment overseas or by general trading, without which our trade situation would have been infinitely poorer over the years?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I gladly pay that tribute.
    Mr. Cook: Has no one told the Financial Secretary that in the past year investment by pension and insurance funds abroad exceeded the total for the preceding five years? Does he really believe that under this Government industry is so strong and healthy that it can afford that haemorrhage? If he does believe that there is that much spare capital around, will he and his colleagues at least stop insulting the House by stating that public sector investment crowds out private sector investment from a limited number of funds?
    Mr. Lawson: As a result of the abolition of exchange control there has, of course, been an outflow of investment overseas. That is a clear consequence. However, there has also been a substantial capital inflow. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are as opposed to outflows of capital as they are to inflows, and their concept of the country as a seige economy is as politically unattractive as it would be economically damaging.
    Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the capital inflow a direct result of raising exchange controls, because it gives the foreign investor confidence that if he puts his money into the country he can get it out if a Labour Government come to office?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is certainly one factor; another is confidence in Government policies.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Financial Secretary aware that not all those who pay their subscriptions to the National Union of Mineworkers are over the moon at the prospect of the pension fund being used to prop up an American property company, especially when, not many years ago, during the property boom under the previous Tory Prime Minister, the mineworkers' pension fund was used partly to finance
    998
    the Cedar Investment Trust, which collapsed with about 30 other banks, and most of the money was lost? Does he understand that some of us are, therefore, against such an investment?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman against most things introduced by any Government at any time, not least against measures introduced by a Government whom he normally supports. The pension fund proposal is supported not only by Mr. Joe Gormley the deputy chairman of the fund. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, half the management of the mineworkers' pension fund is made up of representatives of the NUM. With his close links with the NUM, the hon. Gentleman is uniquely able to take the matter up directly with them.
    Figures for portfolio investment by institutions exclude banks, while complete figures for direct investment overseas are not available. Using available data, the information is as follows:

    United Kingdom Private Investment Overseas (net of disinvestment)

    £ million

    1978

    1979

    1980

    Portfolio investment by financial institutions other than banks

    720

    670

    2,250

    Direct investment by banks and insurance companies

    450

    900

    630

    European Community (Budget)
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total of United Kingdom net contributions to the budget of the European Economic Community since United Kingdom accession, expressed as a percentage of public expenditure.
    Mr. Lawson: A little over a half of 1 per cent.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not that figure, which represents rather less than one-eightieth of what we spend on social security, demonstrate the utter falsity of the picture so seduously fostered by the Labour Party and its accomplices in this matter in other parties that our contribution to the budget represents an intolerable and crushing burden on the British economy?
    Mr. Lawson: I would rather put it another way. The small size of the—[Interruption.]—percentage is a reflection not of the small size—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to conduct private conversations during the answer.
    Mr. Lawson: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
    The relatively small size of our net contribution to the EEC budget expressed as a percentage of public expenditure is not a reflection of the small size of our contribution but rather of the very large size of our total public expenditure.
    Mr. Hooley: What is the rationale of giving almost as much aid to the nine richest countries of the world as we do to the 120 poorest?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member will be well aware that the Government have addressed themselves constructively and successfully to the problem, unlike the Government

    999
    whom he supported. As a result of the 30 May agreement we have secured a substantial reduction in our net contribution. Indeed, as a result of the restructuring proposals put before the Community by the Commission following the mandate that it was given in that agreement, we intend that further progress should be made.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not a colossal cheek for the Opposition to moan about a fairly modest agreement when, unlike the Prime Minister, they did nothing to reduce it when they were in office? Is not the sum about one-fifteenth of the total that they expended on wasteful and useless nationalisation of industries such as steel?
    Mr. Lawson: It is unfair to say that the Labour Government did nothing. To use my hon. Friend's word, they moaned.
    Mr. Shore: Could not the Financial Secretary, to the benefit of the British people, better spend the £400 million, which, as a result of his unsuccessful negotiations, we are to pay to the EEC this year, and the £500 million that we are to pay next year?
    Mr. Lawson: It is the greatest impertinence for the right hon. Gentleman to call the negotiations unsuccessful. They were highly successful. They substantially reduced the net United Kingdom contribution—something that totally eluded the Government of which he was a member.

    United States Secretary of the Treasury
    Mr. Chris Pattenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the United States Treasury Secretary; and what he proposes to discuss with him.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to meet him again at the Ottawa summit on 19–20 July. We shall no doubt discuss our own economies and some international issues.
    Mr. Patten: Following the recent report of the Bank of International Settlements, when my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Regan will he raise with him the question of American interest rate policy, and particularly the volatility rather than just the level of the rates, since that, after all, is a matter of tactics rather than strategy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The volatility of American interest rates has been the subject of some discussion. The monetary control techniques introduced by the American authorities in October 1979 may have led to more interest rate movement, but so, perhaps, have other factors, such as sharp changes in real activity. We hope that as experience with the techniques grows the American authorities will achieve their objectives with less interest rate volatility. It is certainly a matter to be followed up.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Chancellor tell Mr. Regan that the Milton Friedman policies that the Government have pursued are disastrous, and the Americans should not follow suit? Will he also tell him that as, increasingly in Europe, especially with the change of Government in France, interventionist policies are being followed, perhaps Britain and America should consider what Roosevelt did to get America out of the depression?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman would be unwise to draw many conclusions from the change in one Government in Europe. The communiqués of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
    1000
    and the IMF interim committee, for example, show that the policy of giving the highest priority to the fight against inflation and the securing and maintaining of proper economic control has the authoritative endorsement of both those international bodies. That is in line with our policy.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: When the Chancellor meets President Reagan will he co-ordinate with him plans to restore investment in the Western economy and to expand public demand?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I aspire directly to negotiate not with President Reagan but with Secretary of State Regan, although no doubt I shall have the opportunity to exchange words with both. In neither case would I wish to endorse the policy of expanding demand and expanding investment for its own sake when, in most economies, and certainly in our own, it is the excess of demand as compared with the performance of the economy that is the cause of our troubles.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 10 March in bringing down the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Mr. Brittan: The strategy for reducing the PSBR was set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and is being implemented, for example, in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will be an important part of the half-yearly review under the Industry Act later this year to ensure that the increased taxes in the Budget really have reduced the PSBR?
    Mr. Brittan: Certainly that is something which must be kept under review.
    Mr. Cryer: What does the Minister say to the charge that the public expenditure cuts are creating massive unemployment, which a former distinguished Prime Minister has said is breeding race hatred and crime? Will he explain what kind of improved life the people of this nation will face at the end of what that former distinguished Prime Minister described as these incomprehensible policies?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that expenditure cuts are the cause of unemployment. The cause of unemployment is twofold. First, it is the world recession. Secondly, it is due to the fact that over a very long period we as a nation have paid ourselves more than we have earned. As for the future, I believe that the restoration of our economy on a sound basis will provide the opportunity for advance and the provision of jobs, which will be secure. It seems to me that that is much more ground for hope than to continue to spend money propping up inefficient industry.
    Mr. Eggar: How big a reduction in the PSBR can we expect as a result of the privatisation of BNOC and other measures?
    Mr. Brittan: It is not possible to give an estimate at this stage.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the PSBR is composed almost entirely of all the money used for dole

    1001
    payments, redundancy payments and so on? A member of the present Cabinet indeed suggested that when there were 1·6 million unemployed the total amount of money spent on those matters was as much as £7 billion, so it must be nearly £15 billion now. One of the best ways to reduce the PSBR—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Skinner: One of the best possible ways to—[Interruption]—reduce the PSBR—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's way of asking a question. But he must try to get a question into it.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that one of the first ways of reducing the PSBR is to initiate a massive public works programme on the railways, the sewers and canals, and to introduce a 35-hour week without loss of pay, longer holidays, earlier retirement and measures of that kind which will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.
    Mr. Brittan: I can think of no more certain way to bring about economic disaster, if not collapse, than to carry out the policy recommended by the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that somebody who is not unsympathetic to the cause of general reflation estimated that if £4,000 million were spent on reflating the economy the effect would be to reduce unemployment by only 100,000, without taking into account the extremely dangerous consequences for interest rates and our monetary policy that such a policy would entail.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. Moateasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the level of stamp duties on house purchase.
    Mr. Lawson: Suggestions for reductions in stamp duty on house purchase are regularly received from both private individuals and representative bodies, especially during the period when Budget proposals are being prepared.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no more justification for this tax on home ownership than there was for the tax on newspapers or on cheques? When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor starts his regular discussions with me about his next Budget, will he give rather more priority to reducing the levels of stamp duty than he did in the last Budget?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will recall that we substantially increased the threshold for stamp duty and general stamp duty levels, and therefore reduced the incidence of stamp duty on house purchase in the 1980 Budget. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend's representations about the 1982 Budget will be taken most seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
    Mr. Eggarasked the Prime Minister if she will seek powers to control the advertising expenditure of the nationalised industries.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): It is not my present intention to do so. Most nationalised industry advertising is of an ordinary commercial kind. The exceptions can be pursued through other channels.
    Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful advertising campaigns mounted by the British Gas Corporation and British Rail, which clearly have political rather than commercial objectives? Is she aware that the British Gas Corporation's present campaign will cost £2 million? Does she agree that that is an unacceptable use of taxpayers' money and will she take steps to claw back that amount through the cash limits system?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's distaste for some of the non-commercial advertising of both British Rail and British Gas, neither of which is commercial and which we believe in both cases was politically directed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made his views known to the board of British Rail and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs has made her views known to British Gas. I believe that this is a wrong use of public money.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister explain how she intends to advertise the sale and hiving off of the Royal ordnance factories to the private sector when they are the most important component of the logistics of our Army today? Are the Government seriously suggesting that the private sector of the arms industry can be trusted to keep our Army supplied if the hour of need comes again?
    The Prime Minister: A considerable number of firms in the private sector supply defence requirement to our Armed Services. There would be nothing unusual in adding to that number.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is entirely right for British Airways to advertise for custom against other airlines, it is entirely wrong for it to use money to campaign for a fifth terminal at Heathrow and in doing so to be clearly against Government policy, as the Secretary of State for Trade has clearly stated that a fifth terminal should not be built at Heathrow?
    The Prime Minister: The vast majority of advertising is commercial and is not only justified but necessary to get the business into the nationalised industries. I agree with my hon. Friend that anything other than commercial advertising is most undesirable.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Prime Minister accept that on the way here on the wretched railway line from Sheffield to London there are huge advertisements in the fields, painted in black letters on a white background, proclaiming "Choose Corby. It works"? Will she inquire who put those advertisements there—there are at least three of them—telling people to go to Corby because it works, when every hon. Member knows that the people of Corby are out of work and that the Government are doing nothing to put them into work?
    The Prime Minister: Corby is an enterprise zone, and it seems to me that that is a legitimate advertisement.

    Engagements
    Mr. Chapman askedthe Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation of Members of the Indian Parliament led by their Speaker.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time considering the plight of those ratepayers in the Metropolis who will shortly receive supplementary demands? Is it not grossly iniquitous that London ratepayers should be required to subsidise the public transporting of millions of tourists who visit the City each year as well as hundreds of thousands of commuters from outside London who earn their living in the City? If the Government do not have the powers to stop these supplementary demands, will my right hon. Friend try to expedite alternatives to the rating system, which is a rotten iniquitous system?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely wrong that London ratepayers should have to subsidise tours taken on London Transport by tourists or many other people who come into London but who do not belong to London. There is already a grant of about £105 million from the Government, and in addition a large grant from the GLC is financed through the rates. I believe that most people will strongly object to paying large increased amounts for people who come from outside the Metropolis.
    As to finding an alternative system to the rates, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will, I hope, be producing a consultative document before the end of the year.
    Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady yet had a chance to study the speech of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his suggestions that the policies of mass unemployment over which the Prime Minister presides help to breed crime and racial tensions? What does she think of that speech?
    The Prime Minister: I did, of course, see reports of my right hon. Friend's speech. I note that most of my fellow Heads of Government at the European Council agree with the policies that we are pursuing. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should interrupt, because they were not present. Many of the Heads of Government are pursuing the same policies, and most of them agree that lower inflation will lead to more jobs. The question is not about the scourge of unemployment—we all agree that unemployment is a scourge—but rather what effective remedies can be found. We believe that we are going the right way to finding them.
    Mr. Foot: How does the right hon. Lady think that her colleagues in Europe can understand a policy which the right hon. Member for Sidcup describes as "incomprehensible"? Does not the Prime Minister understand that she must answer to this House? What does she think of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Following what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said on this subject, do the Government intend to proceed later this year with further public expenditure cuts which will lead to further unemployment, further racial hatred and further crime?
    The Prime Minister: The Heads of Government in Europe understand the policy, because many of them are
    1004
    pursuing identical policies. In other words, their top priority is to reduce inflation as a means not only of getting inflation down but of establishing a firm base to secure competitive industry and good jobs in the future.
    I also note that the chairman of the IMF made a speech about policies similar to those that we are following in which he referred to the importance of monetary policy and the correct balance between monetary and budgetary policy. That speech very much approved the kind of policy that we are following.
    Mr. Foot: Not enough.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may say "Not enough", but we are trying to reduce public expenditure——[Interruption.]—so that more finance is available for the private sector—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister's reply, and, as I said earlier, we must try to maintain parliamentary standards.
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely why Opposition Members find the policy incomprehensible—because they will not listen.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now say what President Mitterrand said about her policies?
    The Prime Minister: President Mitterrand was the one person who was out of step—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is the case. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, President Mitterrand proposes to increase his deficit to an amount equal to 3 per cent. of GDP. Most of us, who already have deficits beyond that amount, could not possibly consider that policy. Our deficit is already 4½ per cent. of GDP.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parliamentary rabble opposite have no recipes for Britain's economic revival? However, bearing in mind that we have an unprecedentedly large margin of spare capacity in men and material generally, and especially in the construction industry, is it not now possible to consider certain non-inflationary measures to revive the economy that would not lead to an increase in inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I would dearly like to increase the proportion of public spending on public investment. Many of us would, because we think that that would be a far better way of spending some of the money than putting a good deal of it into increased pay. The fact is that the more that goes into increased pay without increased output the less there is to spend on public investment and the less there is available for more jobs. More pay without more output means more unemployment.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that the selective expansionary proposals of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) are recommended by many people in many parts of Britain, not least by the electors of Warrington—[Interruption.] If some hon. Members spent some time on the doorsteps of Warrington, they would discover that fact—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must listen to points of view that it does not like. That is what it is all about in this place.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister accept that many people believe that there is an alternative and that there is a case for selective expansionary investment in Britain that

    1005
    has nothing to do with the hotch-potch of extravagant inflationary expansion peddled from the Opposition Benches?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and others who propose the creation of inflation on top of inflation, I happen to agree with John Maynard Keynes, when he said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know why the House is so excited this afternoon. I remind hon. Members that the clock is moving on.
    The Prime Minister: I happen to agree with Keynes. He said:
    "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose".

Petroleum Duty (Derv)
The following question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. Gerry Neale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided how to recoup the loss of revenue resulting from the reduction of the duty on derv; and if he will make a statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The answer is "Yes". When, in Committee on 30 April, I advised the House to accept the reduction of lop per gallon in the taxation on derv, I made it clear that I would have to recoup the revenue lost in some other way. I should like now to inform the House how I propose that this should be done.
Although the Budget increases in tobacco duty were substantial, I have concluded that most of the extra revenue needed should come from that source. I therefore propose duty changes equivalent to an extra 3p on the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes, together with comparable increases on other tobacco products. These changes will raise about £65 million in the current financial year.
When the House considered these matters many hon. Members suggested that additional revenue should be raised from taxes on gambling. I propose three changes, which will together make up the balance of the offsetting measures: increases in the "off-course" rate of general betting duty from 7½ per cent. to 8 per cent. and in the bingo duty from 7½ per cent. to 10 per cent; and various increases in the rate of gaming machine licence duty. These changes will raise about £20 million in the current financial year.
Although I contemplated earlier that these changes would not take effect until after the Finance Bill had become law I have now decided that it would be better to bring them forward. I therefore propose that, subject to the approval of the House, the increases in tobacco duty should take effect on Wednesday 8 July, the increase in general betting duty on Sunday 12 July, and that in bingo duty on Monday 27 July. The changes in gaming machine licence duty must necessarily be delayed for practical reasons and will take effect on 1 October. The necessary resolutions will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. An amendment will be tabled for the Report stage of the Finance Bill enabling the derv duty change to take effect without delay; I am authorising the necessary extra-statutory treatment until Royal Assent. The duty on derv will thus be reduced by 10p a gallon from 6 pm today.
Mr. Neale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the pleasure with which the road transport operators and those dependent on road transport will learn of that reduction? Is he further aware that those of us who supported the proposed reduction did so on the basis that the money would be recouped from elsewhere? We welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply and think that it is the fair and right course to take.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and, in particular, for his acknowledgment of the benefit that this change will bring to road transport operators.
Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he is talking about one-tenth of 1 per cent. of total tax revenue? What
1008
makes him believe, from his past experience, that such fiscal fine tuning is in any way available to a Government who overshot the public sector borrowing requirement by about £4,500 million last year and who are operating in a total statistical fog as a result of their stubbornness and obduracy?
Is not this statement an entirely political gesture on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's part? Is not this measure directed far more to his colleagues in between PESC exercises than to the real economy? Of course, we shall look at these trivial measures when time for debate is provided—as I hope it will be—next week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be quite foolish to view the necessity for changes in the total objective for public sector borrowing or taxation as if every error would work in one way rather than in another. When the changes were debated by the House on 30 April it was made perfectly clear that the resulting loss of revenue would have to be recouped in this way. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having undertaken to examine the measures.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear from the statement that hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate this matter. I shall therefore call two hon. Members from either side of the House before we move on to the business of the House.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some thought to adopting the suggestion of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that VAT should be removed from petrol and diesel oil in the Scottish Islands? The report of the Scottish Consumer Council shows, for example, that in the island of Barra food is 20 per cent. dearer than in Aberdeen and transport is 31 per cent. dearer. Such a measure could be easily policed.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Question No. 4 on the Order Paper sought to ask the same thing. Although I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman I am afraid that his suggestion would not be a practicable proposition.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Although I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having adopted two of the suggestions that I made in Committee, but would it not have been preferable to undertake a reduction in public expenditure? The Civil Service has been cut by only 5·8 per cent. and the number of local government staff has been cut by only 2·2 per cent. since the general election. Should we not retrieve the money that way instead of by other methods, which increase the fiscal burdens?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two ways of correcting the balance. One of those ways is by correcting the estimated tax revenue. That is the course that I have taken in my statement. However, the Government remain committed to securing the right balance and to securing the proper pattern of public expenditure as well.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the major row that took place in Committee on capital transfer tax concessions in the Budget? Why did he not turn his attention to capital transfer tax and the major concessions that have been made to the better-off in society, instead of picking on cigarette smokers? Millions of working people will now have to pay higher prices.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to understand why changes that have been described as "trivial" by the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs should provoke such dramatic wrath from the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that changes in capital transfer tax—reversing some of the measures introduced by the
previous Government—form an equally important part of our policies for promoting enterprise and economic activity.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne (Knutsford):May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on reminding the House that there is no such thing as a free lunch or even a free lorry ride? So that we can effectively judge the proposal to increase tobacco duty, will he tell us whether, to date, the increase in tobacco duty contained in the Budget has generated the revenue that he expected?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As far as we can judge, there is no reason to doubt that the pattern of yield is in line with the yield that we were expecting. There was a period, immediately after the Budget, when demand fell. That followed a large amount of anticipatory purchasing before the Budget.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw vale): Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) Orders.
Ways and Means resolutions relating to tobacco duty, betting duty, bingo duty and gaming machine licence duty.
TUESDAY 7 JULY—Debate on the White Paper the United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward, Cmnd. 8288.
Lords amendments to the British Telecommunications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock, debate on an Opposition motion on regional policy, and afterwards a debate on an Opposition motion on higher education.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Forestry Bill.
Motions on the Antigua Termination of Association Order, and on the Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order.
THURSDAY 9 JuLY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: Debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Supreme Court Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY I o JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords].
Mr. Foot: I wish to put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he provide time for a debate on the cuts in the BBC's external services? He will know that there is wide resentment about the present proposals If the Government intend to proceed with these absurd cuts, surely they will allow the House of Commons a chance to debate the matter.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when we shall debate the Government's directive, in respect of which there is a motion in my name, dealing with the British Gas Corporation's oilfield at Wytch Farm and the suggestion that it should be sold to the private sector?
[That the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Wytch Farm Oilfield Interests) Direction 1981 be not made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th June.]
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that without the British Gas Corporation that field would not have been developed, and that there is strong feeling about the matter. I trust that there will be time at an early stage to debate the motion standing in the name of myself and some of my hon. Friends.
The third matter is another extremely important one. Will the Leader of the House tell us when we are to have a statement from the Secretary State for the Environment about the planning application by the National Coal Board to develop the Vale of Belvoir, in Leicestershire? It has been suggested that the Secretary of

1011
State is to reject the inspector's recommendation. That suggestion is causing great anxiety, because the development is absolutely crucial to the future ability of the coal industry to supply the nation's energy needs. If there is any truth in the suggestion that the Secretary of State for the Environment is seeking to thwart the proposal and overturn the inspector's recommendation, may we at any rate have an early statement next week from the Secretary of State so that the House may have a chance to decide the matter, rather than the Secretary of State doing so behind our backs?
The final matter concerns a question that I have put to the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. We want an undertaking from the Government that before the House rises for the recess we shall have a proper debate on the Brandt report and all the associated questions. The right hon. Gentleman replies to me each week. As it is such an important subject, the Government should provide the time so that we may know the Government's approach to it. At present no one knows, and a full debate is necessary for that purpose.
Mr. Pym: On a number of occasions I have responded to requests from the right hon. Gentleman on unemployment, textiles, and other matters, and it is obvious from the limited time that is available to any Government that I cannot respond positively to all his requests.
I appreciate that the question of the external services of the BBC is an important one, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we are not making cuts in the amount of money that is available to the BBC. We are trying to improve the service by making it more audible. I am bound to say that I do not think that there will be time to discuss the matter.
If the right hon. Gentleman feels that his motion in relation to the British Gas Corporation is of sufficient importance it should be a candidate for debate in the time that is available to Her Majesty's Opposition.
The decision about the Vale of Belvoir is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has to reach in his quasi-judicial position, as he does on all inquiries. He has to reach his conclusions on the basis of the evidence. I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like a statement next week. I cannot say exactly when my right hon. Friend will be ready to make his announcement. I can only say that he will do so as soon as he has reached his conclusion.
Finally, I am sorry that I cannot go further than I did last week on the subject of Brandt. The House has had a number of opportunities during the past 15 months, including one occasion this year, to debate this important matter. It is a question of finding time. Again, if the right hon. Gentleman feels that the matter is of sufficient importance perhaps he will consider providing the time. I cannot guarantee to provide time before we rise for the Summer Recess but, as I have said before and repeat today, I appreciate the importance of the subject. It is merely a question whether it can be fitted in before we rise.
Mr. Foot: No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of time that is available to an Opposition at this stage of our proceedings is very limited, yet a host of matters are coming forward on which the
1012
Government are apparently seeking to make decisions that normally the House would insist on debating but that will be crowded out if the Government do not provide time.
I repeat what I said about the Brandt report. I expect the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on the matter next week, and I trust that he will give us the affirmative answer that we seek.
On the two other matters, the Secretary of State for the Environment may be acting in a so-called quasi-judicial capacity but he is responsible to the House on the matter, and this House of Commons will want to decide on a matter of such importance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The right hon. Gentleman altogether misunderstands the facts regarding the BBC external services. It is not merely a question of transferring services or saving money; it is a matter of cuts in the services. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that. He should understand, too, that there is opposition to it in many parts of the House and that we should therefore have a chance to debate it.
Mr. Pym: I understand the matter all right, but it is a question of finding time. In comparison with some of my predecessors—and, I dare say, even in comparison with the right hon. Gentleman himself—I have been quite forthcoming in providing time for requests legitimately and properly made by the Leader of the Opposition. If there is time we can fit in some of them but if not it will be difficult.
I think that I have correctly described the position of the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding his decision about the Vale of Belvoir. When he has come to his conclusion he will announce it. If he is not ready to do so next week it will not be announced next week. When it is ready—and, clearly, it will not be long delayed now—the Secretary of State will make a statement about it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow business questions to go on until five minutes past 4 o'clock—that is 20 minutes, which should get everyone in—because a considerable number of hon. Members wish to speak on Northern Ireland.
Sir William Clark (Croydon, South): In view of the great public interest in index-linked pensions in the public sector, will my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Scott report before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that it will not be possible in Government time to do that.
Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath): I wish to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 501, which concerns the position of casual workers who have been dismissed from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.
[That this House deplores the fact that casual workers, now dismissed from employment at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea, are being denied benefit by the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security who are treating them as parties to the Civil Service dispute; and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to end this persecution of innocent parties.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this early-day motion to the attention of his right hon. Friends and arrange for

1013
one of them to make a statement in the House next week to clear up the situation, which involves a great deal of injustice to these people?
Mr. Pym: I shall of course convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said. I understand that the workers in question have a right of appeal against the decisions that have been taken. Therefore, I do not believe that a debate is appropriate. However, I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On the subject of the BBC's overseas services, does the Leader of the House recall that it was after a debate in the House that some of the cuts in languages were not proceeded with at an earlier date? What right do the Government now have to overturn that policy without a further debate in the House?
Mr. Pym: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's representations. It is a matter of time before we rise for the Summer Recess. We have to complete our legislative processes, Supply days, and so forth. I have taken careful note of what has been said by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Julian Ridsdale (Harwich): Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say when the Secretary of State for the Environment will present his Green Paper on local government finance? Is he aware of the problems facing many councils and ratepayers? Will he promise a debate before the Summer Recess on this important matter?
Mr. Pym: I do not believe that that will be possible. My right hon. Friend is planning to publish a short paper soon, but the main paper about alternatives to the rating system will be published in the autumn.
Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline): Is the Leader of the House aware of the speculation in the Scottish press about the financing of the gas gathering system, which is probably the most important single investment to be undertaken by the United Kingdom? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement in the House allaying the suspicion and fears, so that the project can go ahead?
Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend on that point.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In view of the great distress caused by the action of air traffic controllers and the grave danger that any stepping-up of their action will jeopardise the holidays of millions of people, will the Government consider carefully early-day motion 498, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and many others?
[That this House, being no longer prepared to tolerate the continuing inconsiderate behaviour of those air traffic controllers who are causing serious damage to British civilian aviation and severe inconvenience to the travelling public, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make alternative provision for this essential service.]
Will he also consider the amendment that I have tabled calling for early action to ensure that under emergency powers—similar to the powers that exist in other countries, including France, the United States and Germany—the Government are able to take the necessary
1014
action to declare these strikes unlawful? Will there be an opportunity to debate this issue, either at the time of the introduction of such emergency legislation or otherwise?
Mr. Pym: I do not have it in mind at the moment to introduce further legislation. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government will give consideration to the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the amendment appended to it. I do not feel, however, that this is a matter for which the Government will be able to find time for a debate, although there may be other opportunities available to my hon. and learned Friend before the House rises.
Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central): In view of the fact that the Esso Oil Company seems to be threatening to withdraw from the £360 million investment project in Moss Morran, in Fife, unless it gets substantial tax and/or rate concessions, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on the matter at the earliest opportunity, as this appears to be some form of bluff or blackmail by the company? In view of the increasing number of subjects that are obviously in line for debate, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will sit after the end of July if necessary?
Mr. Pym: I can give no assurance on the question when the recess may begin. It is too early to know when that may be. I am not sure whether a statement on the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raises would be appropriate, but I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Atkins (Preston, North): I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) in his plea to my right hon. Friend about the state of British civil aviation as a result of the action of the air traffic controllers. My right hon. Friend will see that early-day motion 498 has the support of 70 of his right hon. and hon. Friends. We do not want the Government, in any shape or form, to give way to the air traffic controllers, but there are alternatives—using the Royal Air Force and/or International Aeradio or other private enterprise companies. This matter cannot continue much longer. The patience of the public is fast coming to an end.
Mr. Pym: I take note of my hon. Friend's representation. I accept fully that there is disruption and disturbance as a result of the strike by air traffic controllers who are not civil servants. The right course would be an end to the strike on the basis of what is a reasonable offer. The Government will consider alternative proposals. There are problems and difficulties about any alternative course, but the matter will be considered.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): In view of the shattering uncertainties caused to so many people employed in the defence industries by the proposed defence cuts, recently announced, not least in Marconi radar sites at Leicester, Gateshead and Chelmsford. will the right hon. Gentleman agree that one day is not sufficient to debate matters that vitally affect the constituencies of so many hon. Members? Adequate time must surely be provided to discuss what alternative work can be made available and what alternative strategy can be

1015
devised to avoid breaking up invaluable design teams, created over a long period, at such places as the New Parks site in my constituency.
Mr. Pym: The day provided next week on the defence White Paper and the two days for Service debates are adequate for hon. Members to raise almost any matter, at any rate any important matter, in relation to defence.
Mr. Michael Latham (Melton): Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers come to the defence debate prepared to deal with the matter effectively? Will he also confirm that there was a six months' inquiry into the Vale of Belvoir issue, at which all points of view were fully and fairly put and that it is open now for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to announce his decision, for which he then becomes responsible to the House?
Mr. Pym: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will come very well briefed to the defence debate. On the second matter, this was obviously a major inquiry. Very big issues are raised. I do not, therefore, think that it is a surprise to anyone that my right hon. Friend should take some time in reaching his conclusion. Indeed, he would be open to criticism if he did not go into the matter thoroughly before reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is intent on enforcing a retrospective cut in the budget of the Lothian regional council that totally undermines the right of the council to determine the level of service in the area and will lead to thousands of public service workers being made redundant in the region this year? If the Government persist with this policy, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure that hon. Members have a full debate and not the one and a half hour debate suggested?
Mr. Pym: If time permits I shall be content to do that. I am doubtful, however, whether time will be available. There are various ways in which this matter can be raised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take advantage of those opportunities.
Mr. Chris Patten (Bath): Following my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks, can he give any indication when there is likely to be a debate on the Navy Estimates?
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking on that matter. The second half of July is the best that I can do.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): May I reiterate the demand made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by our Liberal colleague that the House must have a chance to change the Government's mind about their intended cuts in the BBC language services? As he must know, there is considerable public and parliamentary disquiet about this intention.
Mr. Pym: If it does not prove possible for the Government to provide time, the Opposition might make available part of their time. That is the best answer that I can give.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Civil Service strike is causing anger and worry to many of my constituents whose
1016
pensions are being withheld? Leaving aside the attitude and mentality of those who take action against the weak and the sick, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House next week, particularly about discussions that he or other members of the Government may have had with the clearing banks to help my constituents and many others to overcome the temporary difficulties caused by the dispute?
Mr. Pym: It is extremely unfortunate and reprehensible that some members of the Civil Service should be withholding pensions from their ex-colleagues. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the second matter that he has put with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and also with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that it is likely that the Government will feel able to assist my hon. Friend in the way that he has in mind.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Before the debate on higher education will there be a statement on reports that five universities, including Stirling, in my constituency, have been told to cut student numbers by over 50 per cent? This proposal, combined with the effects of increased fees for overseas students, represents the most devastating blow against higher education by any Government in history. Does the Leader of the House agree with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that this kind of cut is absolutely disastrous and more damaging than the savings justify, or does he agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sell)/ Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) that the last Tory Prime—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not matter whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees. We are discussing next week's business.
Mr. Pym: I do not envisage a statement in addition to the debate announced for next week.
Mr. Tim Eggar: (Enfield, North): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 455?
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its achievement in reducing the nationalised industry sector, and looks forward to the sale of shares in other nationalised industries, or where more appropriate, the hiving off of peripheral businesses, the abolition of monopoly powers and the introduction of more competition, since it is only in these ways that demands on public finance can be significantly reduced, efficiency improved and real costs to consumers minimised.]
The motion is signed by 159 of his right hon. and hon. Members. If we cannot have a debate on this important topic, when can we expect the Government to bring forward the necessary denationalisation measures?
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I cannot put a date on it.
Mr. loan Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen the widespread reports that the House would today be hearing a statement on the university cuts? Is it right that such an important statement should be made in the form of a written answer to a planted question? Will a statement be made before the actual debate?
If the Government cannot give time for a debate on the Brandt commission report, will the hon. Members at least be made aware of the Government's views before the three international conferences that are to take place?
Mr. Pym: A written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend. the Secretary of State for Education and Science is an appropriate way to handle the matter. Another statement today would have delayed even longer a very important debate. That aspect of the matter has to be considered. One also has to take account of the fact that the House has been provided with an opportunity by the Opposition to debate the matter next week. That is a satisfactory outcome.
I am not sure whether it will be practical or appropriate to make a statement on Brandt before we rise for the recess. I am fully aware of the interest of the House in the matter.
Mr. John Farr (Harborough): Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to complete the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords] on Monday 13 July, or to provide another subsequent day?
Mr. Pym: I have announced that progress on the remaining stages will be taken on 13 July, so the answer is that the Report stage will not be completed on that day.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Vale of Belvoir is not good enough, inasmuch as the statement could, according to the press, be that the proposal for the Vale of Belvoir is turned down? Is he further aware that in our view that would necessitate a debate, so that we could test opinion here as well as testing the opinion of the Secretary of State? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while it is a sensible decision for the Government to make in order to subsidise exports of British coal and to control imports of coal, the recent announcement makes as much good sense to ensure that those national coal assets that lie beneath the land of the Tory landowner, the Duke of Rutland, are fully exploited?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman and the House would be wise to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We can then consider the position. I have nothing further to add to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems and confusion that have been created for both consumers and traders since the emergence of credit card surcharges following the publication of the Monopolies Commission report? Will he take all possible steps to obtain a statement of the Government's policy—their acceptance or rejection of the report—before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Pym: I shall take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. I dare say that he has already considered it.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Will there be a statement on the report of the Monopolies Commission about the sale of The Observer to Lonhro? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is considerable concern and disquiet about this well-established newspaper being sold off to a commercial company such as Lonhro?
Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has been receiving certain representations this week, and in due course he will make a statement.
Mr. Michael Shersby: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 336,
1018
which has now been signed by 104 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, on the threat to Britain's invisible exports constituted by the UNCTAD liner code?
[That this House expresses its concern about the threat to Great Britain's invisible earnings constituted by the United Nations Commission for Trade and Development Liner Code and believes that the international trading operations in commodities conducted in the City of London amounting to about £200,000,000 a year is being seriously affected by countries invoking the code even before it is officially approved, and by the operation of cargo allocation centres; considers that the Liner Code may be the forerunner of a bulk code which could seriously inhibit the shipment of commodities from the developing countries traded in the flexible commodity and shipbroking markets in London; and therefore calls on the Government not to ratify the Liner Code until its long-term implications have been fully understood and debated in this House.]
Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, with a view to our having a debate on it, certainly before any consideration is given to ratification?
Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend on that matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley): Will the Leader of the House assure us that a statement will be made orally, and not in answer to a planted question, such as that which was asked on Monday, on the reduction of quotas for British feature films, since a statement was promised by the Minister? In view of the shabby and underhand way in which the Minister reduced the quota of feature films from 30 to 15 without revealing the information to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the order that he placed last Tuesday will be debated on the Floor of the House and not sent upstairs to a Committee?
Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Gentleman's strictures. Again, I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend. However, I am not sure that a debate would be appropriate.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 333—
[That this House recognises that the present terms of the British Nationally Bill will deprive ethnic Britons born overseas of the right to pass their citizenships on to their children born overseas and requests the amendment of the Bill so as to preserve that right during the lifetime of Britons born overseas before the commencement date.]
—and early-day motion 436—
(That this House regrets that, as presently drafted, the British Nationality Bill will retrospectively deprive some British subjects born overseas of the right to transmit their British Nationality; and urges the Government to amend the Bill to remove this retrospective element.]
—concerning the British Nationality Bill?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are concerned about the provisions in the Bill that will deprive Britons abroad, who are Britons by descent under the Bill, of the right to pass their citizenship on to their children? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and arrange for an appropriate amendment to be inserted in the Lords, so that by the time the Bill comes back to the Commons this injustice will have been removed?
Mr. Pym: As my hon. Friend knows, the House has debated the Bill almost exhaustively. It is now in another place, where no doubt it will also receive careful attention. In due course some amendments may come back for us to consider again. I do not think that I can go beyond that, particularly in view of the time that we took here in consideration of that important measure.
Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West): May we have a statement next week from the Attorney-General about his policy on the application of public funds to the various parties in "The Romans in Britain" case? Is he aware that if there are attempts to get round legislation passed by the House it is proper that the Attorney-General should come to the House and declare his prosecution policy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be absolutely wrong if the National Theatre, in defending its reputation, had to use those extremely limited public funds that are meant for the artistic procedures in this country, and not for expensive litigation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not quite sure at the beginning, but it became clear as the hon. Gentleman went along that he was dealing with a matter that I believe is sub judice. He no more than anyone would want to seek to influence the court in its decision. I should hope not, at any rate.
Mr. Kenneth Lewisrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Since there is only one remaining hon. Member on either side wishing to ask a question, I shall call those two Members.
Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that some hon. Members would like a discussion on the BBC's foreign services, either now or after the Summer Recess, before irrevocable decisions are made, so that we can influence whatever is done?
Mr. Pym: I note my hon. Friend's representations and the views that have been expressed during these exchanges.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Is the Leader of the House aware of the great number of oral questions on trade that were lost last Monday due to the absence of Members? Will he tell the House how the negotiations are proceeding through the normal channels on the rearrangement of Question Time, whereby energy, trade and industry questions come later in the week?
Mr. Pym: I cannot say what progress has been made in that respect, but it seems to me that if hon. Members table questions and are not then present to ask them it is a matter for them.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That this House approves of the Government's proposal to continue the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for further periods.
The format of today's debate is a bit different from usual, and I am glad that it is. We shall later be debating the order renewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the renewal of direct rule, though much of the ground will no doubt be covered in this debate. But at a time when the last two years show a general improvement in the security situation, now seriously threatened by disorder and violence associated generally with the prison protests, it seems to me right that before deciding on the orders before it later today the House should undertake a more general review of law and order and political development in Northern Ireland.
Let me begin with security. I must do so because, despite the beauty and peace of much of Northern Ireland, criminals still provide too frequent evidence of their perverted desire to kill, maim and destroy. It is that factor which distinguishes the task of maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sometimes IRA propaganda would have the world believe that, uniquely in Northern Ireland, British Governments want to see emergency provisions in force. As I have said at every renewal of these powers since coming to my present office, I propose their renewal only because they serve an essential purpose in the prevailing circumstances. If the terrorists drop their campaign we can drop the emergency provisions. If they dislike these provisions, the remedy is in their hands. We are doing what we can to achieve normality.
With great courage and dedication, ordinary policemen are doing ordinary police duties in increasing areas of the Province. There has been a distinct change in the nature of Army operations over the past few years, and it now acts only in support of and at the request of the police. This change, difficult to handle, has been made without diminishing in any way the closeness of co-operation between the two forces. The fact that it has gone so well reflects the greatest credit on the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland, and especially upon the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. The people of Northern Ireland and this House owe them a great debt of gratitude—and so, on a more personal note, do I.
Let us look at the progress made and, I must say, the present threat to that progress, even though I am convinced that that threat will be overcome. The gradual decrease in violence, which began in 1977, continued over the succeeding four years, with the result that 1980, although far from peaceful, was the least violent year since 1971. There were fewer murders, fewer injuries caused by terrorist violence, fewer explosions and fewer shooting incidents than for 10 years. The first four months of 1981 saw a continuation of this generally downward trend.

1021
Over the past two months the picture has been sadly different. The impending death of Robert Sands at the end of April was the signal for an outbreak of street violence, which continued until after the death of a fourth hunger striker on 21 May. Although spasmodic, and never as widespread as the media sometimes portrayed them, these outbursts became particularly intense on occasions and presented the security forces with a formidable problem. Moreover, they were accompanied by a fresh upsurge of terrorist violence in the form of shooting and bombing attacks, aimed in large measure at the security forces. Although the street violence has died down, the terrorist attacks continue. Over the past two months 27 people have lost their lives—more than in the preceding four months.
The people of Northern Ireland reacted, as always with fortitude and restraint, in the face of the provocation, intimidation and disruption which flowed from the street rioting. Their coolness and courage helped the security forces enormously in their unremitting efforts to contain and bring to an end the rioting, while continuing their pursuit of the violent law-breakers, who have no regard for the safety and happiness of the people of Northern Ireland. I pay public tribute to the immense skill, stamina and personal courage of the policemen and soldiers who, often facing a barrage of stones, petrol bombs, acid bombs and blast bombs, ended the riots with a minimum of force and disposed of the risk of far greater violence.
I do not believe that the events of the past couple of months are a permanent setback. I am sure that the security policy that has been followed by successive Governments over recent years is the right one. That policy is very simply stated—those who break the law will be dealt with according to the law. This applies to rioters, those who hijack cars, those who murder and those who maim. Since 1 March this year, 577 persons have been charged and a further 431 summonsed in connection with offences arising out of the rioting. Furthermore, in the first six months of this year alone, 472 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences.
I am convinced that this is the right and only way to tackle the violence. I can understand those who become frustrated that terrorist activities still go on and who cannot understand why the police and the Army do not use more drastic measures to stop the men of violence. But the bedrock of a free and democratic society is the fair and impartial enforcement of the rule of law by the security forces. One cannot uphold the rule of law by stepping outside it oneself. To do so would merely play into the terrorists' hands.
We must, of course, ensure that the police and the Army have all the necessary resources to enable them to combat those who seek to undermine our society. The Chief Constable and the GOC tell me that they are satisfied that at present they have all they need in the way of manpower and equipment to cope with all the situations that their forces have to face. But an essential part of their total resources is the legal powers with which they seek to maintain law and order.
It is for this reason that I shall ask the House today for the renewal of provisions that are still necessary to enable the security forces to do just that.
The House will recall that 12 months ago I thought it right to propose that the detention provisions of the Act should be allowed to lapse. I recognised during the debate on the Act last December that many hon. Members were concerned that, given the continued reduction in the level
1022
of violence during 1980, I had no immediate proposals to allow other provisions to lapse. I scrutinise very closely the need for each of these provisions. I understand and share the concern of the House that the justification for them must be closely examined. There are various ways of achieving that. In present circumstances, the initial responsibility rests wholly upon me and my Department and then, when I bring to the House an order such as the one that we shall consider later today, the responsibility is Parliament's.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will move his amendment shortly, and of course I shall listen closely to what is said in support of it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will give a considered reaction in winding up this debate, when he has heard the arguments, but at present I am not persuaded that what is suggested in the amendment is a good idea.
Among the concerns that have been expressed recently is concern about the system of trial for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, and notably about the absence of juries. I should like to say something on this in particular. The principal reason, in fact the sole reason, why this mode of trial was introduced for these cases was the intimidation of jurors. This was not just supposition; there are too many well documented cases of it. Regrettable as it may be, the plain fact is that nothing has happened to persuade not only me but the Chief Constable that this risk would be any less now than it was some years ago, when the provisions were introduced. I can conclude only that the reintroduction of juries in terrorist trials at present would be against the interests of justice.
Having said that, I want to emphasise that, notwithstanding the absence of a jury, the basic principles of the administration of justice hold good in the so-called Diplock courts as they do in any others. In particular, the defendant is tried in open court. This is no secret tribunal: the public and press are present and the press is free to report the proceedings fully. There are clear and fair rules of evidence. The onus of proof rests squarely on the prosecution, and, unlike in trials by jury, the accused has totally unfettered right of appeal. He can insist, if he wants, on having his case examined not just by one judge but by a total of four. These are substantial safeguards for the accused, by any standards.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham): Is it not right to say that the appeal is on the documents only and does not involve an oral hearing? Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having three judges for the trial? If he has difficulty in recruiting enough judges from the Province, will he consider bringing others from mainland Britain?
Mr. Atkins: I was going to make a very similar point. The unfettered right of appeal includes the right of appeal on fact, which I understand does not apply where there are juries. The Diplock court has one judge, but the appeal court has three. That was how I arrived at my total of four judges who can hear questions of fact.
If there were three judges in the court of first instance, I do not believe that the right of appeal would be unfettered, and I know of no country where that happens.
Let us be fair. We should all prefer to see 12 jurors. At present there are four judges. I want one day to return to the jury system for all offences in Northern Ireland, but,

1023
as I have said, juries are open to intimidation in a way that, to their great credit, judges are not. I am afraid that I cannot advise the House that it is yet safe to go back to juries, as we all want to do, for the scheduled offences.
Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I share some of the opinions that the Secretary of State has just expressed, but does not he agree that the Government can take measures to enable the accused to be given an equal and fair opportunity at every stage of the judicial process? Accused people should have recourse immediately, during the first 72 hours of detention, to legal advice, which is now often withheld from them.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not know what the circumstances were a few years ago, but now such people have access to solicitors as of right after 48 hours, and every 48 hours, at the maximum. There can be no question of persons arrested, either under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or the orders that we shall consider later being denied access to solicitors. That follows upon the Bennett report. It was one of the recommendations which I remember telling the House we had adopted 18 months ago or more.
When we talk about the fairness of the system of justice, it is perhaps worth remembering that those who have engaged in various forms of protest in the Northern Ireland prisons over the years have not been protesting their innocence of the crimes for which they have been convicted. Many of them, I regret to say, have boasted that they did the things for which they are in prison. Their protest continues to be not against the system of trial but in pursuit of political status.
When considering the case for the renewal of emergency provisions, I have considered, as I have to, the upsurge of violence which may accompany the deaths of other hunger strikers if they persist in their action.
If more hunger strikers die, I have no doubt that such deaths will be the occasion of demonstrations and violence, which will fuel the vicious circle of hatred and bitterness. The Government's position on the hunger strikes must now be quite clear to everybody. It has been the same since before the hunger strike which began last October, and I repeated it as recently as the day before yesterday in a public statement, which I have placed in the Library. A public statement of that sort is inevitably a rather impersonal document.
Let me say simply in a more personal way this afternoon what I stand for in this matter. I stand unequivocally for the rule of law. I want to see those who break the law arrested and brought before a court where the evidence against them can be tested openly; and if they are convicted of serious offences I want them to be put away in prison for the protection of the law-abiding public.
I accept that that is not an end to my responsibility. Indeed, that is the point at which my responsibility begins. Whatever crimes they have committed, I stand for the humane treatment of prisoners. Nobody who has seen the facilities available in Northern Ireland prisons can deny that, if only the protesting prisoners would use them, the facilities there, which have no parallel anywhere in Europe, are available to assist them to live a good and useful life when eventually they are released.
As far back as last October I said that the Government were committed to maintaining and improving the regime
1024
in whatever ways practical and as resources allowed, provided such changes did not amount to conceding the substance of the political status which the prisoners have always demanded. I respect the continuing humanitarian interest of the Irish Catholic bishops and bodies such as the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. I consider very carefully the opinions of such responsible bodies. I recognise the sincerity of their efforts.
Unfortunately, the intransigent statement of the Provisional Irish Republican Army only yesterday made it quite clear, in response to my own statement, what it is that those directing the hunger strike are seeking. They want acceptance of the five demands, which in their view add up to political status, and nothing less. There cannot now be any doubt in anyone's mind that this Government will not grant that, and will never accept that political motives justify violent crime. The European Commission of Human Rights, in its decision of June 1980 on this very question, put it succinctly. It found that the status of political prisoner was a status to which the prisoners were not entitled under national law, under the European convention or under existing norms of international law. Our stand against political status upholds a principle of international validity. And that, I believe, is why no Government in the free world have suggested, for one moment, that we should concede political status.
I know that I speak for the whole Government and, I believe, the whole House, when I say that none of us takes any pleasure in the prospect of further deaths by hunger strike. There has been enough violence in Northern Ireland already, without adding to it self-inflicted and pointless deaths. I applaud once again the forthright condemnation by the Irish Catholic bishops not only of the self-inflicted violence of those engaged in the hunger strikes but of those evil men outside the prison who play their part in directing these actions.
I urge the families of the hunger strikers, who are more closely in touch with opinion outside the prisons than their sons can be, to pass on what I believe to be the unanimous message of those with any concern for the future of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not grant what is being sought. The prisoners themselves may not realise that, and the cynical men who manipulate them certainly will not tell them. Out of parental duty, and in common humanity, parents, relatives and friends of the hunger strikers should tell them that any further deaths would be futile. They will not cause the Government to grant their demands but will merely be used by evil men as the pretext for further violence. I hope most earnestly that the prisoners engaged on hunger strike will bring their fast to an end.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): The sentiments that the Secretary of State expressed about the hunger strikes will win acceptance. He rightly quoted what the Catholic bishops said when they condemned the hunger strikers. We know that violence is being caused by the hunger strike as well as to those who are dying. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that short of giving political status—and there is no disagreement on that aspect—there is no way of making concessions by way of clothing and association which may finally resolve the crisis?
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will remember that during last year, both before the European Commission of Human Rights reported and subsequently, we made a

1025
number of adjustments to the prison regime. The adjustments were all improvements, I believe. Out of the 12 that we made, eight applied to the protesting prisoners who at that time were engaged either in the no-clothes or the dirty protest. We made improvements to the regime. Virtually none of them was accepted by the protesting prisoners.
I have said time and again that we want to maintain a good regime and to improve it where we can. However, every time that we have said that we have been met by those in charge of the hunger strikers with the statement that they are not interested in improvements in the regime. They want us to meet the five demands that will give them political status, and nothing else. They said that again yesterday.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I accept the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but does he agree that there is a danger of alienating moderate opinion in the Republic of Ireland that would not normally support the IRA by the apparent intransigence of the Government over the hunger strikers? [HON. MEMBERS: "In what respect? What rubbish."] In the light of that, although I realise that it is early days, how does my right hon. Friend propose to put over to the new Irish Government the points that he is making so well to the House this afternoon? Will he consider inviting members of the new Administration of Belfast so that they can see what conditions are like in the Maze prison?
Mr. Atkins: I agree that it is important that the new Government of the Republic and everybody else should realise the true position. If there is any intransigence—and there is—it is intransigence on the part of the prisoners. The Government have committed themselves to making improvements to the prison regime as and when they can. They have demonstrated their good faith in that regard. That has been met only with a total stubborness and refusal to move, except backwards.
It is worth remembering that only after we made the improvements to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did the hunger strike begin. When we made the improvements we were met only with a backwards response.
I turn to the second of the two orders which we shall ask the House to approve later this evening.
Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prison conditions under which most of the IRA prisoners are confined are very favourable compared with those that operate in most of our prisons on this side of the Irish Channel?
Mr. Atkins: I am not familiar with the inside of many prisons. I do not know about my right hon. Friend. My understanding is that the conditions in the Maze, partly because it is one of our most modern prisons, are better than any that obtain in the United Kingdom. I am told by those who have greater knowledge than I that that favourable comparison can be made with the whole of Europe.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe): I recall to the Secretary of State the visit of the three Members of the European Parliament to one of the hunger strikers. Afterwards one of them reported that he was informed that political status was not a sticking point. Did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibilities that that report seemed to present to him?
Mr. Atkins: On that occasion the prisoner visited said "I am not talking about political status. I want the five demands." When the prisoners were asked what "political status" meant, they expanded it into five demands. They have never budged from that. They seek to be treated differently from other prisoners because they claim a political motive for their crimes. That is something that the Government will never concede, and I do not believe that any Government in the Western world would contemplate that for one moment.
I should now like to turn to the second of the two orders that we shall be asking the House to approve later this evening—the interim period extension order, which continues the provisions for direct rule in Northern Ireland for a further 12 months.
Let me say a word about "direct rule" as it has existed since the end of the power-sharing Executive in 1974. I have found a great many people in the Province who approve of it. They believe that it has served the Province well and are not at all convinced that it ought to be changed.
I, too, believe that the system has worked well over the past seven years. It provides a Government acting with the authority of Parliament here at Westminster, with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet and a Civil Service which, while preserving its own identity, works closely with and is able to draw upon the experience and resources of the far larger administrative machine in the rest of the United Kingdom. Above all, I believe that it is generally regarded in Northern Ireland as being fair between one section of the community and another. Successive Governments in Northern Ireland have been heavily criticised for what they have done or not done—of course they have—but none of the criticism that I have heard accuses us of having the sectarian bias that earlier central and local authorities were alleged to have in the past. However, the 1974 Act always envisaged that those arrangements would be temporary—hence the necessity to renew them today.
Furthermore, all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not just some, but all—have been seeking for seven years an alternative way of running the Province. That is why successive Governments have made the most serious and comprehensive attempts to find a way forward that commanded general acceptance. That is why, as the House will remember, I convened a conference in the early part of last year to which I invited the main Northern Ireland political parties to establish what was the highest level of agreement between them as to how we should proceed.
We found out. We found that the level of agreement was nowhere near high enough to enable me to invite the House to pass legislation setting up a new system. I think that it is true to say that there was a genuine feeling of regret in the House and outside that this opportunity—which was real and from which there was much to be gained—was not taken. One party refused to come and those who did found themselves unable to move from their entrenched positions. No one in Northern Ireland can be said to have gained from the refusals. However, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, it is no good looking back. We must look to the present and the future, and not to the past. One opportunity has been missed. We must look for another.
In the first place we must build upon one positive achievement of the last year. The development of relations

1027
between this country and the Republic of Ireland has been of great value. Everyone knows that in certain areas there is a community of interst between our two countries. We in the United Kingdom, including of course Northern Ireland, cannot be untouched by events in the Republic, any more than the Republic can have no interest in what happens in the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Mr. Haughey in Dublin last December we have been actively developing the unique relationship that has always existed between us. In matters of trade, transport, energy, and agriculture there are links between us. In security we face the common enemy of terrorist violence. In European and world affairs, though some of our interests may diverge, our basic philosophy is much the same. Our economies face the twin evils of inflation and unemployment.
The past seven months have, I am sure, been of real and lasting value to both countries. One thing that we have not sought to do is to negotiate the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. Despite all the scaremongering, that accusation has not been made to stick. Indeed, I think that there is now a general and an accurate understanding and sympathy throughout the British Isles for the objectives of our efforts—to improve relations between two countries that are historically, geographically and economically inextricably linked, and between which misunderstandings are not only undesirable but positively dangerous. I am sure that I have the House's endorsement of our hopes that we can with profit continue this process with the new Government in Dublin.
Mr. John Farr (Harborough): Does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly one of the reasons for the misunderstanding about the discussions is that they they have been cloaked in secrecy? If they are to continue, does he not agree that it would be a good idea—if there is nothing to hide and they seem to be admirable discussions—that there should be a sensible statement after each discussion?
Mr. Atkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what has happened. On the last two occasions that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met, in May and December last year, a statement was issued. In between, officials get on with the work that they have been charged to do. I do not think that there is much benefit in the publication of notes between officials, minutes, suggestions, and so forth. Surely what matters is that when Heads of Government and Ministers meet to make decisions, those decisions should be public and open to question—in our case in the House. That is what will happen. I agree with my hon. Friend that the negotiations between the Heads of Government must not be conducted secretly—they are not and will not be.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South): In the light of what the Secretary of State has said, what was the point that Mr. Fitzgerald was making?
Mr. Atkins: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Fitzgerald, because I do not know. I have not talked to him.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York): What have the officials been discussing, because that has not been made plain?
Mr. Atkins: It has been made quite clear. They have been discussing the areas set out in the communiqué of 8 December, issued after the meeting of the two Heads of Government. It seemed to the two Heads of Government that in those areas it might be profitable to consider whether relations between the two countries could be improved. The officials have been doing that. They are still doing it. They will report to the respective Heads of Government who will consider the reports, meet again and, if they decide that those are the right areas and we should proceed in that way or that there are other areas which would be valuable, they will announce it and will be subject to questioning about it. That is the sensible, proper and normal way in which Governments discuss matters between each other.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State not think that one of the reasons why there may have been confusion—which, I think, was the word he used—about what was taking place in the Dublin talks was the statements made by the leaders of the Republic of Ireland that—statements that were not refuted by the Secretary of State or the Government—alleging that constitutional matters were under discussion?
Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of acknowledging that I have repeatedly said—I said it about three minutes ago—that we are not negotiating the future of Northern Ireland. I have said that time and again, and I am happy to repeat it now. That is not a matter for discussion or negotiation.
Mr. James A. Dunn: I agree with some of the things that the Secretary of State has said and repeat what I said earlier. There are some areas of concern. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to normal discussions and questioning in the House, does he not realise that following the 8 December meeting no full statement was made? What headings is he talking about? What are the officials discussing at present? What areas are they examining? What reports is the right hon. Gentleman expecting? It is not too late to tell us.
Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the communiqué he will know that they are considering the areas set out in it, which have been agreed between the two Heads of Government as areas which they might profitably explore. No decisions have been taken about what should flow from any papers or any submissions from officials. That will be for the next meeting, after which any decisions taken will be made known to the House in the usual way. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to say what they think about them.
We need to ask ourselves whether it is right simply to rest where we are, with the existing system of direct rule and discussions with Dublin, which do not embrace constitutional matters, or whether we should consider alternative possibilities. Let me make one thing crystal clear. We shall not be influenced by what I can only call the doctrine of despair that we hear from certain quarters at the present time. Just because there is no easy answer and the going gets rough, we shall not give up—in Northern Ireland any more than anywhere else. We are certainly not going to cut and run, leaving the citizens of Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom want nothing more than to get on with their daily lives in peace and quiet, without the services and protection that they deserve and need.

1029
Nor shall we daily with the idea of redrawing the borders of the Province. Anybody who knows the distribution of population in Northern Ireland also knows how futile—as well as unprincipled and unjust—repartition would be. It would exacerbate, and not resolve, the problems.
During the two years that I have held this office I have come to understand with great clarity that the difficulties that Northern Ireland faces are long-standing, deep and complex, and can be solved only by patience, determination, and dedication. That is as true now as it ever has been. It has shaped our approach since coming into office. It will continue to do so. To allow frustration and impatience to determine our policies would be the utmost disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe it to be of prime importance that hon. Members should not allow themselves to be infected by the call for glib, simple solutions which would not answer the real questions that we face in Northern Ireland.
I do not conclude that we should simply sit on our hands and do nothing. I have never made any secret of my view that direct rule as it exists today, while it has the many advantages that I spoke about earlier, nevertheless contains one major flaw—there is not enough of a Northern Ireland political input into the governing of the Province. Of course there are the 12 representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, but they, like Ministers, face the twin difficulties both of the range of subjects with which they must concern themselves and of geography. A Northern Ireland Member of Parliament has to represent his constituents here, as we all do, but he has also to do the job of a county councillor and much of the work that would be done in England and Wales by a borough or district councillor. Much of the latter involves contact with authorities in Belfast, Londonderry or wherever, and the impossibility of being in two places at once is a handicap that none of us can overcome.
Our exhaustive discussions during the past two years with Northern Ireland political parties have driven me to the conclusion that it is not yet possible to confer executive or legislative powers upon a representative Northern Ireland body. A body exercising such powers must be acceptable to both parts of the community. The basis for that acceptability still does not exist. We must, therefore, consider—as was foreshadowed in paragraph 64 of our last White Paper, Cmnd. 7950, and as I indicated in my speech to the House a year ago—a more gradual approach, under which a representative body can be set up which does not at the outset possess such powers.
We need that body as a matter of urgency. There is a pressing need to re-engage people in Northern Ireland in political matters and in the bread-and-butter, social and economic issues that most directly affect people's lives. But if a new body were to be directly elected it would need legislation and then elections. That would impose a long delay, possibly of 18 months. I want to move more rapidly than that.
I therefore intend to proceed without legislation and to set up, by administrative act, a representative Northern Ireland Council which, at least initially, will be composed of persons already elected by the voters of Northern Ireland to other representative bodies—to this House, to the European Parliament, and to the 26 Northern Ireland district councils. In the coming weeks and months I intend to carry forward detailed arrangements for setting up that
1030
new council, which I hope will convene about the end of the year. As part of that process I shall wish to have discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall want to take account of their comments in framing the details.
Following that, I intend to present my final proposals to Parliament in an appropriate form so that there will be an opportunity for the House to consider them. However, it may be helpful if I give the House a general outline of the kind of body I have in mind.
I envisage a council composed of perhaps 50 representatives from the elected sources that I have already mentioned—Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, district councillors. I intend to invite people to serve after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland political parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. Each party will be asked for a specific number of nominations related to their electoral strength. I shall provide appropriate facilities to meet at the Parliament buildings, Stormont. It will be for the council to decide upon its own procedures, including the question whether it should deliberate in public. Members of the council, invited to serve on that basis, will be paid an attendance allowance.
As I have said, these are outline proposals. I want to discuss the details with the parties during the coming weeks.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The Government are about to embark upon a foolish move by creating a body that will be regarded as a body of castle Catholics, paid to acquiesce in Government decisions, without having the power of the vote of the people in Northern Ireland. It is possible to have an election for a proper democratic party. The Secretary of State has power to end some of the divisions in the community in Northern Ireland by getting rid of the religious apartheid that exists in education, at the taxpayers' expense in schools and in training colleges. He has shied away from that problem. The Government are tinkering with the situation in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has much to say. He has made his comment. No doubt he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
While not exercising executive or legislative functions the council will perform a positive role in a number of areas. Let me itemise three. First, I shall invite it to consider and report to me on the activities of the Northern Ireland Government Departments which cover the range of matters transferred under the Constitution Act 1973. I shall expect it to report on specific matters that I refer to it. I shall make relevant information available to the council, which I think might with advantage form representative functional committees to deal with particular tasks.
Secondly, I shall invite the council to scrutinise proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland so that I and my colleagues can take account of it before laying draft legislation before Parliament. I have already settled procedures for consulting interested people—who better to consult on political matters than political representatives? Naturally, the decisions on legislation will continue to be taken here.

1031
Thirdly, I shall invite the council to consider the future government of Northern Ireland and what proposals for the exercise of executive powers and legislative powers by elected representatives might prove to be acceptable to both parts of the community in the Province.
As the House will recognise, in all aspects of its role the council will be advisory—not executive or legislative. Naturally, I would, when appropriate, take account of its advice when coming to Parliament with its proposals. I shall take account of its advice in whatever area I operate. In doing so, I would attach, as Parliament would attach, special importance to advice that was unanimous or, failing that, commanded widespread support from representatives of both parts of the community. The advisory council would be encouraged to adopt procedures that made it clear to what extent its views commanded such support. But, as I said before, responsibility for all legislation would rest with Parliament, and I would remain responsible to Parliament for the direction and control of the Northern Ireland Departments in the discharge of their executive functions.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I recollect the right hon. Gentleman saying that he intended to proceed by administrative action and not by introducing legislation. Surely something as important as this merits at least a day's debate in the House.
Mr. Atkins: I am announcing how I seek to proceed. I have given the House an outline of the role and composition of the council. I repeat that I shall have consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland over the next few months. Following those consultations I shall return to the House with detailed proposals, which I shall ask the House to approve. The precise manner in which that will be done is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House than for myself. However, it is essential that the scheme should proceed only with the authority and backing of the House. I do not think that it will be possible to bring the detailed proposals before the House until the autumn.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: Earlier the right hon. Gentleman referred to the communiqué that was issued following the Dublin talks between the Heads of Government. He referred to heads of discussion that were being pursued by officials, with ministerial guidance. I presume that the discussions include possible institutional changes between the two countries. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention—does he accept this as a desirable possibility—that the consultative council, if that is the right phrase to use, will be brought in on some of these discussions? Will it have any contact with the discussions on institutional changes?
Mr. Atkins: It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that I said that, apart from examining the way in which Government Departments work, I shall ask the council to consider other matters that are referred to it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the other matters that it would be proper to consider referring to the council.
Mr. James Dempsey: Will the council that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to establish as a representative body of both communities be purely advisory and not an executive body?
Mr. Atkins: That is correct.
The House may wish that we could move faster and further now but we have to temper hope with realism. Given our experience over the past two years and the constraints that we have to recognise, I believe that we are proposing a sensible, reasoned way forward. We are keeping faith with the principles that we have enunciated consistently since coming to office, and we are building on the foundations painstakingly laid over two years.
I can only say again what I said at this time last year. We are offering an opportunity. Once again the Government are prepared to do all they can to build upon this opportunity as a way forward. It is now for others to respond.
In the meantime direct rule will continue, fairly, efficiently and as responsive as we can make it to the demands and needs of the Northern Ireland people. That is essential for the time being. But I hope that from here we can move to a point, one day, when the renewal of the direct rule provisions that we shall have before us later tonight is no longer required because new, stable governmental institutions have been established and accepted in Northern Ireland that are acceptable to both parts of the community.
I have been speaking about the motion on the Order Paper, which asks for the approval of the House to continue two temporary laws, the one for six months and the other for 12. But the future of Northern Ireland, like its past, is a great deal longer than that. There are a great many people with a great many ideas about what that future should be. I dare say that we shall hear some this afternoon. It is certain that we shall hear a lot in the coming weeks and months, including, I fear, contributions from some people who know next to nothing about the Province today and, indeed, in certain cases, have never even been there.
Everything that happens in Northern Ireland touches us here in the House very closely indeed. But we are all democrats, and when we take decisions, large or small, we want to know—and take pains to find out—the reactions of those whom our decisions will affect most directly.
It is for that reason that I commend to the House the establishment of the Northern Ireland Council that I have just outlined. It will enable the people of Northern Ireland, through representatives that they have elected, to have a greater influence on the governance of their own Province than they have at the moment and it will enable us, when taking decisions about Northern Ireland, to be even better informed about representative views there than we are now.
I invite the House to give its approval to the approach that I have outlined by voting in favour of the motion.
4.56 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`agrees that it is time for a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978'.
It is with regret that I speak on the renewal of the direct rule and emergency powers for Northern Ireland. It is a source of continuing disappointment to me and to many others in the House that the troubles in Northern Ireland are still with us. I regret that no political process has been found to bring the conflict to an end. I join with the Secretary of State in welcoming the format of the debate.

1033
When the renewal orders came before the House previously the Opposition had to accept them as they were and there was no opportunity to amend them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on this occasion we would have found ways and means of putting the amendment before the House even if we had been presented with the old format. However, the present format meets with our approval.
The Opposition are aware of the necessity for these measures, but we reaffirm that they will not remain on the statute book for one minute longer than is necessary. The debate takes place in a climate of deepening concern, throughout the country and around the world, about Northern Ireland. That is not new. Paragraph 11 of the Gardiner report, which was published in 1974, states:
"The presence of influential communities of Irish descent in many parts of the English-speaking world means that a number of Britain's allies and Commonwealth partners have a keen interest in the stability of communal relations in Northern Ireland. Yet some of these same Irish communities have themselves helped to sustain violence there by their support for para-military organisations."
I pay tribute to all our security forces for the work that they have undertaken and for the tolerance that they have shown over the years in Northern Ireland. In a written answer that appeared on Monday we were able to read the names and ranks of the British soldiers that have been killed or mutilated in Northern Ireland. The answer spread over three or four pages.
We must recognise that there are many others in Northern Ireland to whom we should pay tribute. There is considerable unemployment in Northern Ireland but many workers continue to go to work and to go about their daily business. There is still too much violence in Northern Ireland, although the figures are decreasing.
My recent visits to Northern Ireland and my daily postbag have led me to conclude that it is essential for a new initiative in the Province. The politics of extremism and fear will thrive as long as there is a political vacuum. There are two substantive issues before the House. These issues are the extension of direct rule for another 12 months and the renewal of emergency powers for another six months. The amendment calls for a wide-ranging inquiry into the emergency powers. We have reason to believe that they are a real and continuing source of grievance and friction. In that regard, there is an urgent need for an independent review. In many other ways, our amendment provides a bridge between the two issues. It poses certain questions about the manner in which direct rule should be operated and requires the Government to account for their actions or inactions before the House.
Before I move on to the Opposition's case for a review I shall concentrate the attention of the House on the issue of direct rule and explain why the Opposition have agreed, with a number of reservations, to have the order extended for another 12 months. I am sure that I am expressing the thoughts of many hon. Members when I say that we deeply desire a resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland and an end to the sickening violence of the last 12 years. However, there is still the question which was first posed in the summer of 1969: how best can that conflict be resolved?
The Opposition do not accept the notion that immediate withdrawal either of a political or of a military nature would best serve the ends of peace. The events of recent months have so galvanised opinion on Northern Ireland that I sometimes wonder whether we are back in the early
1034
1970s. There is a marked difference, however, between the tenor of opinion in 1971 and 1981. I detect a new sense of urgency and hastiness which we in the House should be careful to guard against. Many people in mainland Britain are becoming frustrated with the polarised politics in Northern Ireland.
While some people have expressed their frustration in renewed calls for humanitarian and rational resolution to the hostilities, others have adopted the mantle of all human wisdom and have come forward with neat sounding, one-line solutions to the problems. It do not doubt the sincerity of those who have promulgated such ideas, yet I am afraid that many are ill-thought-out and, if implemented, might result in suffering and tragedy on a scale which is frightening to contemplate. For those who say that the situation cannot become any worse, let me assure them that it can. It can become a lot worse.
I cannot believe that by replacing the Army with a United Nations force or a workers' militia, or by unilaterally pulling out of Northern Ireland, we shall promote peace or stability in the Province. The deep-seated differences between the communities there would never be resolved by taking an india-rubber to the map of Ireland and trying to move or erase the border. At the end of the day the physical border is not the real issue. It is the border in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland to which we must address ourselves. There is little scope for the map maker in such a delicate conflict of national identity.
For the present, we do not seek an immediate available alternative to direct rule. The options for the Province's future that have captured headlines in recent weeks have tended to telescope out of sight the real problems which continue to exist in Northern Ireland. Where two communities are divided by culture and religion as well as by political sympathies, as they are in Northern Ireland, no easy settlement of discord is possible.
The problem is further compounded by a history of distrust and suspicion which permeates most contact between the communities. Superimposed on this is the continuing activity of terrorist groups that try to manipulate the population by the tactics of fear and intimidation. There cannot be an easy or swift answer to such a complex problem. If anyone thinks that there is, he is living in a fool's paradise. Direct rule is, for now, the only realistic option for the government of Northern Ireland. However, we do not believe that the lack of ocher realistic options should lead to complacency about direct rule. It is not now, nor has it ever been, an answer to the problems of Northern Ireland.
In 1972, when direct rule was first introduced, it was regarded as an interim measure pending some other arrangement for the stable government of Northern Ireland. That other arrangement has proved elusive. I need hardly remind hon. Members that successive Governments have tried and failed to find agreement between the two communities that would lead to a form of government acceptable to both sides.
After the abortive talks last summer, we should ask some probing questions about the purpose of direct rule and about the obstacles that stand in the way of the settlement that will bring peace to that strife-ridden province. It must first be acknowledged that there are elements in the equation of failure other than successive British Governments. Without question the continued campaign of violence in Northern Ireland is a major

1035
obstacle in the way of co-operation. It generates fear and drives an even deeper wedge between the communities, which are already divided on so many issues.
There is no doubt that violence has seriously undermined all attempts to find a peaceful settlement. We reiterate our view that the bomb and the bullet must never be allowed to overrule the democratic process. We believe that it is legitimate to work through the process of political persuasion for a united Ireland, a Northern Ireland integrated with the United Kingdom, or even a sovereign Northern Ireland. However, we can never tolerate the use of violence for political ends.
There is another obstacle in the way of political change that should not be allowed to escape our notice. I am speaking of the intransigent position adopted by certain Northern Ireland politicians who advocate a return to majority rule in the Province and refuse not only to compromise but even, on occasion, to talk. It is fruitless for certain political groups in Northern Ireland to demand a return to the old Stormont regime and nothing else. They must come out from behind the constitutional guarantee and start talking about ways of finding an agreed settlement. Such a settlement can be best achieved under the aegis of aggressive and positive direct rule while looking forward with imagination rather than being bogged down in the slogans and failed experiments of the past.
I should like to say a few words about the constitutional guarantee. That guarantee, enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 and reiterated on numerous occasions since, recognized the logistics of the situation. It recognised that the mass of the population could not be forced to accept constitutional change to which it had not consented. That is the real guarantee. It was not intended to be used as a veto on political discussion and should not be abused as the excuse for political stagnation on the part of the majority. Any guarantee should operate in two ways. It is a reciprocal arrangement, in which there are givers as well as takers. In this case the 50 million or so guarantors who live in Britain have every right to expect reasonable and positive political behaviour on the part of politicians in Northen Ireland. Every time they see unreasonable or negative behaviour—the antics of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) must be included in that bracket—those people lose confidence and interest in Northern Ireland.
The time may come when we will have to look again at the written guarantee with a view to widening its ambit. Perhaps a formal recognition of the aspirations for dual nationality of the people of Northern Ireland would be no bad thing. We should think of guaranteeing the rights of the minority community as well as those of the majority. Whatever changes are eventually made, we in the House must not allow the guarantee as it stands to be used as an excuse for doing nothing. After two years of Tory rule in Northern Ireland, the time has come to stand back and consider how that rule should be operated and to question the purpose behind its continuation. We believe that it should work on two distinct—
Mr. Tom Benyon: In view of the doubts expressed about the Labour Party's policy for the Province as identified in The Times leader today, can the right hon.
1036
Member say categorically that that policy has nothing in it that would amount to a denial of self-determination for the majority in the Province?
Mr. Concannon: I can do that now if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I have had to listen to a heck of a lot of pontification about Northern Ireland over the last two or three months, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not miss the opportunity of having my word today on certain issues. If he cares to wait, I am sure that I shall come to the point that he raised.
I was dealing with the operation of direct rule. I accept that it should be worked on two distinct but complementary levels. The first involves the creation of channels likely to lead to a settlement of the conflict, and the second centres on influencing conditions of day-to-day life in Northern Ireland, so that when a settlement is eventually achieved it will have a solid base on which to flourish.
On the wider political level we recognise that the Secretary of State has sincerely tried to bring the parties in Northern Ireland to some form of common agreement in the most adverse circumstances. That is why I do not condemn what he has put before the House. We shall have to consider it seriously, and I trust that he includes the Opposition among those whom he is to consult. I hope that we can debate the issue and reach a conclusion. I welcome any genuine attempt to improve the government of Northern Ireland, and I wish the proposal luck.
We also welcome closer co-operation between London and Dublin, which has been a recent feature of Government policy, but we sincerely hope that the Government will not allow suspicion and mistrust to ferment by refusing to come clean on what the talks are about. Hon. Members have every right to know the meaning and tenor of the talks. We hope that it will be possible for the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members to contribute to the important debate in a wider Anglo-Irish context. I am glad that in his speech the other day the Taoiseach said that that was one of his intentions. I hope that it is also the intention of the Government.
Over the past 18 months the Labour Party, too, has focused its attention on the problems of governing Northern Ireland. A special study group was set up to make policy recommendations to the conference in the autumn. I cannot pre-empt conference decisions, but the group, of which I and several other hon. Members are part, has left no stone unturned in the search for a workable policy on Northern Ireland. We have taken evidence from within our movement and from groups and individuals in Northern Ireland. Discussions have been held with a wide variety of organisations from North and South of the border. We hope by the end of the year to have a clear and credible policy on Northern Ireland to put before the House and the people of the Province.
It is by now almost common knowledge that the group's thinking reflects the long and deeply held belief in the Labour Party that Ireland should, by peaceful means and on the basis of consent, be united. However, I admit that the group's recommendations have a long way to go before they can be accepted as an authoritative policy statement, and I am not now in a position to expand further. Suffice it to say that we do not have and will not acquire any illusions about the difficulties of implementing such a policy. Too many of us on the study group have experience of working in Northern Ireland to believe that the task will

1037
be easy. We realise that changes in the Northern Ireland constitution cannot be made without the consent of those who live there, and we must win that consent.
After nine years of direct rule it is high time that the political parties in this country stated their intentions about Northern Ireland openly and clearly and said how they view the most satisfactory long-term settlement. The Labour Party will soon be in a position to do just that, and I hope that the other parties will follow our lead.
In the meantime, direct rule will remain, and it is within the context of the second level of direct rule—the day-to-day government of the Province—that I intend to raise the question of an inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In response to a question from the Conservative Benches the right hon. Gentleman said that the principle of self-determination was fully accepted. If the Labour Party fully accepts the principle of selfdetermination—the belief that a majority part of the United Kingdom can determine to remain part of the United Kingdom—how is it possible for the Labour Party to propose as an objective of party policy a different answer?
Mr. Concannon: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. It is not yet party policy. There are a few hurdles still to go. Things do change. The study group is not thinking of change tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. I said that within a framework we must work towards winning over the people of Northern Ireland. It is a question of winning people's hearts and minds. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have some experience of Northern Ireland. I know what a task it will be, but it is the Labour Party's long established view that peace and stability will come to Northern Ireland once the disparity that the border brings is removed.
I said earlier that the border is not just a line on the map. It did not take me long to find out that it exists in people's hearts, and that is the problem that the Labour Party will have to tackle.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's response. He says that the Labour Party will set itself to the task of winning hearts. In view of the objective that it puts before it, its objective is to win the hearts of the majority in Northern Ireland against membership of the United Kingdom. That must be so.
Mr. Coneannon: The right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I said that we should have to win the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. I did not say anything about the majority or minority. We are thinking about the long-term future. I do not see the situation staying as it is today. I hope that people of the Province accept that there can be movement. I also believe that Dublin has a part to play. It is no good saying that the matters to be discussed are on the table. Dublin and the British Government must spell out their intentions for the whole of Ireland.
Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Party would work to persuade the Ulster people to leave the United Kingdom and to join the Irish Republic in a United Ireland. Does he realise that such statements are bound to create instability and tension and give a spur to the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign to coerce the people of Ulster to come out of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman is also putting words in my mouth. I was careful about what I said. To hear him talk, one would think that I knew little of Northern Ireland. I have much greater knowledge of the situation than many hon. Members. I know the difficulties, and I know that certain things that are said may be picked up and wrongly used. That is why, within the study group, I have been assiduous in making known the problems, so that it cannot be said that we are helping the IRA. My credentials in the matter should not be questioned. The hon. Gentleman could possibly accuse others but never myself.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should continue the search for peace and stability. We should certainly not give the IRA the veto. We should progress towards stability and peace along the lines that I suggest, which does not mean that we are giving the IRA the veto.
Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman's courage and character are beyond question inside and outside the House.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to have another interruption before the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the first.
Mr. Dunn: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend had replied.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a word that he said in reply to the other intervention.
Mr. Concannon: I shall merely thank the hon. Gentleman and accept what he has said. I think that on reflection he has taken my' point.
Mr. James A. Dunn: This cannot be allowed to go without challenge. On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has said and the questions that he has been asked, is it not also in his mind, and has it not also been put to him, that many of us believe that this is not a matter to be left to the sole decision of Northern Ireland? It is a United Kingdom matter and all the citizens of the United Kingdom should pass judgment on it.
Mr. Concannon: I believe that when I referred to the guarantee, I said that there were 50 million guarantors also looking for progress in Northern Ireland.
Britain has nothing to be proud of in her record of rule over Ireland down through history. We all have to live with that record. Indeed, I believe that we have a moral duty to try to right such wrongs as we can. Whatever the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past, we must now ensure that our actions in Northern Ireland are as far as possible above reproach and beyond criticism. Merely stating that fact, however, as some have done, does not mean that the troubles will go away.
During its five years in Government the Labour Party attempted to use direct rule in a positive and purposeful manner. On the economic front, it adopted a special policy of attracting high-grade industries to Northern Ireland and maintaining public spending levels intact.
I should mention that while working hard on this speech and other matters appertaining to Northern Ireland today, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), had to meet two separate deputations of people high up in trade unions and industry

1039
in Northern Ireland. It grieves me that such people have to come here. I need only mention to the Secretary of State Enkalon and Abbey Meats and to ask what on earth is going on on the economic front in Northern Ireland.
We must know the policy and purpose behind what is happening, because these matters are related. The situation with regard to Enkalon is extremely serious and as we found out this morning, the same applies to Abbey Meats. All this affects the economic front, but I hope that the Minister understands that what happens on the economic and social welfare front has a bearing on the security and political front.
The Labour Government deliberately tackled the problems of bad housing and poverty and succeeded in stabilising the level of unemployment when it had started to rise in other areas. Our period of direct rule was also committed to eliminating the remaining discriminatory practices in Northern Ireland. An impressive range of Government and autonomous agencies, such as the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission, were set up specifically to remedy and prevent discrimination in public administration and all levels of employment. Through such works we began to win the support of both communities, which we regarded as essential groundwork for any discussions on a political settlement. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason), having worked for both of them over that period—I was the continuity man in the middle, for my sins—for the work that they did in winning that wide support.
Everyone conveniently remembers the renowned Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974, but conveniently forgets the unsuccessful strike led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North in the early summer of 1978. Under our regime his personal following was dwindling—a situation hardly credible today—and I believe that at one time he offered to resign from political affairs if he did not win on that issue.
What is more, direct rule was seen to be working. Ministers were out and about in the community more often than they were settled in Stormont Castle. I, too, could be seen about. I remember two weekends, the first of which I spent in Lisnaskea with our late colleague Frank Maguire and the second at the Wheel Tappers and Shunters Club with Harland and Wolff. There are always hazards in these things. After five years in office I came back from Northern Ireland three stones overweight—full of potato bread and Guinness, no doubt. I am still waiting for the whippets on the Conservative Front Bench to show the same visible signs of the activities that Ministers should undertake in Northern Ireland.
It was a strict policy laid down by my two right hon. Friends at that time that one had to be out and about and be seen to be working hard at direct rule. We proved that there was a fair way of government, as the Secretary of State has said, but that work is never finished. Much of what we achieved needs to be constantly reviewed to ensure that real or imagined feelings of deprivation or discrimination are properly dissipated.
It is in that vein that we today call upon the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government to institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Very early in our period of office we
1040
realised that such powers, which effectively suspend the normal course of common law for those accused of terrorist offences, needed to be independently reviewed if they were not to be seen as the tough arm of a repressive State. That inquiry, brought into being by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South and chaired by Lord Gardiner, recommended substantial changes in the emergency powers after they had been in operation for less than two years.
Most of the recommendations—notably the ending of detention—were accepted by the Labour Government and implemented either immediately or when the emergency powers were amended. Whereas there was a space of just 18 months between the passage of the first Diplock emergency powers Act and the setting up of the Gardiner inquiry, it is now seven years since the House had the benefit of an independent adjudication on the operation of the strong powers contained in the Act.
For the past 12 months Labour Members have been urging the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry along the lines of the Gardiner inquiry to see whether those powers are still appropriate to the security situation in the Province today. To use a sporting metaphor, I think that that suggestion was dribbled the length of the field by the Secretary of State and then conveniently kicked into touch.
I remind the house that the Gardiner inquiry stressed that the
"emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration."
I suggest that some of my colleagues who are new to Northern Ireland should read some of those old reports. It is even good for me, having been there at the time, to look back at them. They provide a great deal of information on the real problems of government in Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 21 of the report says of such powers:
"Though there are times when they are necessary for the preservation of human life, they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions."
Clearly, the Secretary of State did not have those words in mind when he effectively scotched our suggestion last December by saying that an independent review would raise false expectations, and, in his view, would increase tensions. Many Opposition Members believe that the very powers in the Act may serve—I only say "may serve"—to heighten tensions.
While we fully accept the need to protect the community against terrorism, we are deeply concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties. The continued and unreviewed emergency powers as they stand may impede the possibilities of a peaceful settlement.
There are a number of areas in which we think that an inquiry would help the House when we consider these powers in future. In particular, as has been said, the one-judge and no-jury courts which deal with terrorist offences should be brought under close scrutiny. While Gardiner concluded that no change should be made in this area, the time may now be ripe to have a panel of lay assessors or a group of three judges sitting together. All the pros and cons on this are in the Gardiner report. There is also a strong argument for reconsidering the list of offences which have to be dealt with by such courts. It may be possible—I put it no higher than that—to deschedule some of them so that a measured return to jury trial can be achieved.
In this respect, I remind the House that the Gardiner report stated in paragraph 26:

1041
"We believe that trial by jury is the best form of trial for serious cases, and that it should be restored in Northern Ireland as soon as this becomes possible."
I am not giving my views. I am merely stating areas of concern which I believe should be seriously examined by an independent body, as took place in 1975.
Similarly, with other sections of the Act, most notably the provisions relating to prosecutions for firearm offences, many believe that the onus of proof is wrongly placed on the accused to explain why he happened to be in the same building as a firearms cache. That should also be looked at.
I am also concerned about rules laid down for the admissibility of evidence. Section 8(2) of the Act may not fully protect the accused from the use of force or threat of physical violence when under interrogation, and there is a strong case—this has been admitted in some of our previous debates—for the wording of that section to be tightened. There may also be room for change in the section dealing with proscribed organisations.
That was brought to public attention only recently with the finding of guns, and so on, at the headquarters of the Ulster Defence Association. I understand that the Secretary of State has instituted an inquiry, and we shall watch closely to ensure that all terrorist organisations, whatever their aims, are treated in the same way.
Many other aspects of the emergency powers need to be looked at again and reassessed in the light of the changing security situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will refer to some of them, and I am sure that many others will crop up during the debate.
An independent look at these powers could be of especial benefit in relation to the hunger strike protest at the Maze prison. Those engaged in the protest have used their conviction by unique judicial powers as part justification for their claim to special and unique treatment in prison. Anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that the extraordinary judicial processes that exist to deal with crimes of a terrorist nature had to be introduced because of intimidation against witnesses and jurors. Indeed, the whole course of justice in the early 1970s was perverted in the most unacceptable way, when many witnesses and jurors were too scared of kneecapping or "knee-capping through the head", as the phrase used to go, to get involved with any court proceedings.
To those who doubt that, I quote paragraph 27 of the Gardiner report, which stated:
"we were given details of 482 instances between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder and other terrorist offences were either too afraid to make any statement at all, or, having made a statement implicating an individual, were so afraid that they refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. It is reasonable to assume that juries would be equally open to intimidation."
My family and I really know what intimidation is all about, and we are also aware of the various obnoxious ways in which it can be carried out by all sorts of organisations.
An independent review of emergency powers would be able to look again at this situation to evaluate one way or another whether the conditions still exist to make special judicial processes unavoidable.
In such a sensitive and delicate area we believe that an independent voice would be of immense value. It would be able to place the claims of the protesters, that they have not been justly treated, against the distorting influence that terrorist activity has on the normal course of justice.
1042
I stress, however, that we have not changed our view on the question of political status. No matter what intimidation I may experience, I do not think that anyone would expect me to acquiesce. The view of the Labour Party and the last two Labour conferences is that we are against the granting of political status, and I can do no better than quote paragraph 107 of the Gardiner report to explain how we stand:
"We can see no justification for granting privileges to a large number of criminals convicted of very serious crimes, in many cases murder, merely because they claim political motivation. It supports their own view, which society must reject, that their political motivation in some way justifies their crimes."
I reject political status, and the Labour Party rejects it.
While we would support liberalising changes in prisons throughout the United Kingdom we could never condone the use of violence for political ends. That would be to fly in the face of all the traditions of democracy and freedom of speech which this House and my party hold dear. It is quite plain that the emergency powers for Northern Ireland are in urgent need of review. It means not that we must weaken our fight against terrorism but, rather, that we should look into the working of the system of justice to see whether it is not now counter-productive.
All of us would benefit from an independent look at the Act, for where such wide-ranging powers to arrest, detain, interrogate and convict exist we should always be looking to see whether a return to normality is possible. As a Minister, I know how helpful the first Gardiner report was. We could look at it and quote it and say that it was the way forward. I remind those who complain about it that one of its chapters is now defunct. That is the chapter on detention, but, of course, we had to introduce some kind of judicial process as envisaged by Diplock and Gardiner.
We do not wish to see provision for direct rule or emergency powers on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary, but while direct rule remains it must be seen to be impartial and fair. Where there is such notable and significant disquiet on the administration of justice, this House has an unquestionable duty to respond in a positive and sensitive fashion.
Our amendment is a reasonable and moderate proposal. I am amazed that the Government have refused to accept it. It will do their intransigent image no good at all. I ask all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who support our idea to follow the Opposition into the Lobby tonight.
Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that we regard a review of the Act as a matter of priority. As soon as the next Labour Government are returned to power they will institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the working of the Act to see whether such exceptional powers are still totally necessary.
5.37 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am proud to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has served Northern Ireland well, and, despite all the difficulties with which he must contend within his party, he is still serving Northern Ireland well.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was something of a curate's egg, because it had to reflect the views of an addled party. At the beginning of his speech he talked much good sense about the folly of the idea of reparation and the right of our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland to enjoy the same self-determination as was accorded to the

1043
people in Southern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of it, but what he said about the border was a quotation from Kevin O'Higgins, who said that it was no good talking about abolishing the boundary until we had abolished it in our hearts.
The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable speech. However, I must make one further small criticism. He said that we had nothing to be proud of in Ireland. But if we go to Ireland and look about us, we can see some things about which the British can be proud.
Mr. Kilfedder: Trinity college.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed—but that was the English and not the British.
If the right hon. Member for Mansfield looks at the speech by John Redmond in 1914 about social and economic conditions in Ireland compared with such conditions in Great Britain, he will find testimony from a great nationalist that there is indeed something in Ireland about which the British can be proud.
I must turn to the business before us before I test your patience, Mr. Speaker, too far. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that I long for a moratorium on political talks accompanied by boycotts and for a moratorium on political initiatives, political options, and so on. However, I am not prepared to say a word against his proposal for a Northern Ireland Council. It is not quite clear how it will be formed or how it will function. The council of Wales already plays a certain part. A Northern Ireland Council could conceivably be developed in the direction outlined in the Conservative Party manifesto. This proposal is either important or it is not. I presume that it is important. Therefore, it is only right that hon. Members should be given more notice of its provisions before debating it. It is only right that we should consider the proposal and then discuss it sensibly. We all want to extract as much value as possible from my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
In general, I regret the frenetic tendency to be seen to be doing something in order to impress others. The other day I read that the Northern Ireland Office had been awarded the palm of "institutional inventiveness". Sometimes that inventiveness should be kept within bounds. We should not always seek to do things that may impress those who are opposed to us. An extreme example of that is the letter from Mr. Peter Jay that appeared in The Times.It is a horrifying thought-and perhaps it explains some of the things now happening in the United States of America—that he was once our ambassader to Washington. He wrote to The Times to tell us that we can outflank the IRA and defeat it by doing what it wants. He suggested that we should give the IRA a united Ireland. However, the united Ireland that Mr. Jay had in mind is not the united Ireland that the IRA thinks about.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield clearly asserted the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination, but he then spoke about Irish unity. I hope that by "Irish unity" he meant that we might be able to rebuild the unity of these islands on the unique relationship that exists between the Republic and the United Kingdom, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the two nations within them.
Mr. James Molyneauxrose—
Mr. Kilfedder rose—
Sir John Biggs-Davison: To whom should I give way, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. James Molyneaux.
Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he rightly said that we should not be expected to express detailed opinions abut the proposal for the Nothern Ireland Council without being given more notice and detail. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be expected to vote, even by implication, on any such proposal this evening? Does he agree that the way in which we vote tonight should not be taken as an expression of approval or disapproval of the Secretary of State's proposal?
Sir John Biggs-Davison: In any case, I propose to support my right hon. Friend. His proposal is not in a form in which we can give a considered judgment on it in the Lobby, or otherwise.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Secretary of State resumed his seat it appeared to a number of us that he said that a vote in favour of the main motion would be taken as expressing general approval of the proposals that he mentioned. It would greatly help if we have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman and if a vote for the motion conveys no more than the words of the motion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) must say something, otherwise we shall have a disorderly debate.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: With great relief, I see that my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I do not recall the precise words that I used. I intended to say that I hoped that the House would approve of what I said and that I hoped that it would also approve the motion. Obviously, we shall vote only on the words on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members approve of what I said.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not find the amendment offensive. We are constitutionalists, and special powers that invade the liberty of the subject and the normal judicial processes of the land should never be taken for granted. Nor should their authorisation by or renewal by Parliament be taken as read. In Northern Ireland we defend the rule of law against the law of the gun. As my right hon. Friend said, we stand unequivocally for the rule of law.
When we debated the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act last December I expressed approval of what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I said:
"I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not close his mind to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the effect that the Diplock courts should be reformed…We take note of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that any emergency power no longer needed will be dispensed with."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1577–80.]
The Secretary of State repeated that assurance today.
I do not attack the Diplock courts. On the initiative of the hon. Member for Belfast, West I interested myself in the case of the late Guiseppe Conlan. I happen to believe in his innocence, and I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, to discuss the case again with the Home Secretary. It was said

1045
that if Conlan had been tried by a Diplock judge instead of by a judge and jury he might not have been unjustly convicted. I mention that in order to defend the Diplock courts against some of the attacks made on them. The Cobden Trust has been busy again. There was a conference at Queen's university, Belfast, on 13 June on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Lord Gardiner attended the conference and I travelled back with him from Northern Ireland. A pamphlet that is probably in the hands of many hon. Members loses much of its credibility because it makes the following wild assertion:
"According to widely accepted Queen's University study,"—
that is rather a vague way of expressing it—
"up to 80 per cent. of all convictions in Diplock Courts have been based on out of court admissions under the 'cruel inhuman and degrading treatment' standard."
I am sorry that that piece of work should have been vitiated by such an extraordinary and outrageous accusation. It is worth considering whether there are scheduled offences—the right hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned this point—that might be released for trial by jury. I do not pontificate one way or the other. However, we should be assured that there is the machinery for keeping such matters under continuous review.
I hope that the Minister of State, in summing up, will tell us whether any machinery exists, either in his Department or within the Joint Advisory Committee on Human Rights, for keeping under review the workings of the Diplock courts and of the emergency provisions generally.
Mr. Concannon: I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is labouring under a misapprehension. All the groups that he has mentioned are in favour of a new independent review of the emergency powers legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that just because we are moving towards a review of the Act we are against that legislation. We are not doing that, nor are we saying that. We are saying that there should be a review. Some of the matters that worry the hon. Gentleman and others could be looked at in that independent review. That is all that we are saying.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Member for Mansfield has shown, not only by his words today but by his deeds, that he supports these regrettably necessary provisions. We know that, and I did not question it. He has asked for an independent review. I am not sure what is meant by "independent". I am asking for an assurance by the Minister of State that the point is taken that concern exists in the House and that we are not prepared to go on six months after six months. It is a pity that opinion should be divided in the House by the text or the detailed words of the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has properly tabled for discussion today.
Lastly, another review is required—a review of the workings of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, which runs parallel with the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act of the Republic. I do not know whether that legislation has been effective in any other case than that of one of the murderers of Captain Nairac. It is a piece of machinery which everyone has said is only a second-best to extradition. It presents difficulties to investigating officers and to witnesses, whether they come from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this legislation is working well. I do not believe that such modest expectations as we had of it have been fulfilled.
1046
The truth is—I say this as one who has great respect for the statesmen and people of the Irish Republic—that the Irish Republic is not discharging its international responsibilities or its duty to a European partner. Its territory is still being used as a base, a haven and a place of training and re-equipment for terrorists who make their incursions into the United Kingdom. There is a new Administration in Dublin, and we wish Dr. Garret Fitzgerald and his colleagues well. Their detestation of terrorism is unquestioned, but we look to them to find ways of matching words with deeds, deeds—that can lead to the extinction of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.
5.45 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: Those of us who do not have our constituencies in Northern Ireland or who do not live in that tormented Province should exercise considerable reticence in intervening in its affairs—although every one of us is a part of the United Kingdom—because we cannot wholly judge the atmosphere in which contributions are made. I hope that what I shall say this afternoon will be construed in a constructive way, and certainly as no attempt to be in any way irresponsible about affairs, as I see them as an observer.
I add my hearty support to the tributes that have been paid to the soldiers, the police and other members of the public services who daily carry out their heavy responsibilities at the cost, sometimes, of their lives and personal safety. Having observed what has happened, I also wish to add my thanks to Ministers and politicians of all persuasions who are concerned with public life in Northern Ireland, who work under pressures over and above those that any of the rest of us in the United Kingdom have to endure. They do a thankless task with great courage.
I was glad to hear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has been a Minister or a Shadow Minister since 1974—longer than most of us have been associated directly with that problem. Speaking for myself, I admire the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities with vigour, honesty and commitment. I want to put on record how deeply I resent the slanders and attacks that are being made on him by those who should know better—such as the attempts by outsiders to organise a train from London on Saturday to descend on his constituency. It is a monstrous intrusion, and I am sure that Mansfield will repudiate those interlopers if they arrive.
I fully support the renewal of the emergency regulations, and also the request made by my right hon. Friend, which was supported by Conservative Members, for a review of the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that there is no particular advantage in refusing that. There is always an advantage in conceding it when it can be conceded, so as to satisfy those who feel that from time to time Parliament should have the opportunity to review these matters. I trust that the Minister of State will give art affirmative answer when he winds up.
The Secretary of State announced that in certain circumstances he will be prepared to consider improvements in the regime at the prisons. He also announced

1047
today a new proposal that will give some kind of political input into the affairs of Northern Ireland. I see no reason why we should not hope that that will prosper, although I had a wry smile when his two initiatives on two separate days were immediately repudiated by the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Such is the fate of all initiatives and proposals that are made about Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that what I shall say today will be met by outcry and outrage as soon as it is said, by one or possibly by all of those who are concerned with these problems.
That leads me to a conclusion, to which I shall come a little later. I fear that we must conclude that Northern Ireland is in almost total stalemate, both politically and militarily, with alarming adverse social and economic consequences, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend and others.
Our present policy, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon, with all of our support, is to pursue the dual policies of direct rule and persistent firmness and resolution to repress the violence of the IRA and any other terrorist organisations. I believe that all of us strongly support these measures, which are directed against those who have brought so much terror and suffering to Northern Ireland.
However, today, as we are asked to renew the emergency regulations, as we shall do, we must ask the two questions that the people in our country are asking. First, how long do we persist with these dual policies? Secondly, will they succeed?
There are those who argue that to say anything new will encourage the IRA, and that if we persist long enough and with the resolution that has been shown by all Ministers of both parties on this matter we shall eventually win. Then I have to ask the question: what does winning mean? History shows that during the past 25 years there have been only six years without political disruption or violence of one kind or another. Those periods occur when, temporarily, the IRA has shot its bolt and falls back exhausted. When it has regathered strength, the battle starts again.
So I repeat: what does winning mean? Does it mean another temporary respite? Does anyone believe that our dual policy of direct rule combined with firmness will result in Northern Ireland emerging permanently—I utter the word "permanently"—from years of torment, with its people reconciled to one another and all of them reconciled to the existing relationship with Britain? I must answer that question in the negative. I do not think that history or any judgment of the future can lead us to that conclusion. At best, "winning", in my judgment, would be merely—no, I withdraw the word "merely"—would be an uneasy period of lower tension until the IRA had found another pretext to start the cycle again and plunge the people of Northern Ireland, once more back into disruption and death.
It is 12 long years since I gave the signal for British troops to be deployed in the streets of Belfast. I might recall that this signal was given in answer to insistent calls from the Catholic population expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whose courage, again, over the years, all hon. Members must commend. It was given in answer to insistent calls from
1048
the Catholic population, expressed through my hon. Friend and others, for protection against extremist Protestant mobs. That should not be forgotten.
When the troops went in we said publicly that we hoped that it would be for a short time. Privately, I do not think that any of us associated with that decision really believed it. We knew that it was easier to get in than to get out. Time has shown how right that view was. Since then, the number of troops deployed on the streets in Northern Ireland has increased at times and has decreased at other times as the situation has fluctuated. I do not believe that there is any solution at all in the slogan "Troops Out" or in the belief that if we put more troops in we shall get a solution. Neither will bring permanent reconciliation.
I agree that direct rule carried out fully by Secretaries of State in Governments in which I have had the honour to serve in one position or another has been an important and major success in providing the government that the Province had to have. However, it does not provide a permanent political solution, as I believe the Secretary of State was acknowledging this afternoon, although he did not explicity say so. It is this that I say the House must seek again, despite what has happened in the past.
During the last 12 years many well-intentioned and well worked-out proposals have been put forward by Ministers and others inside Northern Ireland as well as by Governments of both parties in Britain. All these have been attempts to create a stable political structure. All have failed. Every plan or scheme that Britain has put forward has been criticised and found to be unsuitable by one community or the other, and sometimes by both. They have all ended in the waste paper basket.
Looking back over that last 12 years—this is the lesson that I draw—we see that Britain has proposed and Ireland has reacted. I believe that the time has come to change that kind of pattern. I shall say how I think it should be done. This afternoon saw another example. As soon as the Secretary of State had announced his proposal for a political council, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was on his feet to say how useless it would be.
Yesterday, on the hunger strikers—
Mr. Kilfedder rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I shall give way in a moment. As soon as the Secretary of State made his proposal the other side were immediately on their feet to say that it was useless. The Secretary of State is an optimist, or he would be a very disheartened man.
Mr. Kilfedder: The point that I was making—I think that it is fair—is that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to operate through elected representatives. To create an advisory body made up of people nominated and without responsibility and power will not help Northern Ireland. At best, it may create an opposition group on the advisory council. Many of them might be the minions of the Secretary of State, paid to be there.
Mr. Callaghan: I understood the Secretary of State to say that his intention was that the parties should nominate their own representatives from among those who had been elected either to this House or as district councillors or as members of the European Parliament. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. One cannot, however, say that they would be creatures of the Secretary of State. If that happened, I am sure that the parties would soon

1049
replace them. I do not wish to discuss the matter at this moment. I instance it—I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North will forgive me—as an example of the perpetual reaction that occurs to any proposal made from Westminster, however good or bad.
Mr. Kilfedder: It is right that people should react.
Mr. Callaghan: I wish to address my next remarks specifically to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The time has come when we in Westminster must remove any lingering belief among the two communities that it is the duty and the responsibility of the British Government alone to overcome the obduracy of whichever community is in opposition to what British Ministers propose. I believe that this would mark a sea change in our relationship with the Province. The Secretary of State has begun that process today in a minor way.
I must take my share of responsibility for what we have done and the mistakes that we have made over the last 13 years. I have had something to do with it. I believe that our well-intentioned but paternalistic attitude has undermined the sense of responsibility that the people of Northern Ireland should feel for their own destinies. We see examples of that every time a proposal is put forward.
The proposition that I wish to put is that Britain, from now on, should make it clear that she intends increasingly to regard the people of Northern Ireland as responsible for proposing and taking the initiatives to solve the problems of how they intend to live with one another. It is my genuine belief, following discussions, that many people in the Province would respond with courage and fair-mindedness to this challenge.
The Taoiseach, Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, said during the course of the election something with which I profoundly agree. It was:
"The future of Northern Ireland will not be shaped by politicians or civil servants in London and Dublin aiming mirrors at Belfast and Derry. Ultimately it will be decided by Irish men and women acting together in Ireland."
I am pretty sure, reading the context, that Dr. Fitzgerald was referring to Irish living in the South working with Irish living in the North. When he talks about "acting together", the same truth applies to those who live in the North whose need is also to act together.
My case today is that Britain should at once begin the process of formulating a new policy based on that principle. It should provide such a policy for a continuous series of separate steps taken at deliberate intervals with the ultimate aim of giving the people of Northern Ireland complete responsibility for their own affairs.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Complete?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, complete. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will acquit me of any intention of finding a one-line solution. I do not intend to fall into that error.
Mr. Powell: Independence.
Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will find all these questions answered before I reach the end of my speech. By murmuring that word he will not get me there any sooner.
The process that I envisage would take some years to complete and the final step would be that a new Northern Ireland would emerge as a broadly independent State.
Mr. Powell: Broadly.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the qualification is worked out if he contains himself. There would emerge a broadly independent State that had in the process forged a new relationship with both Dublin and London. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not be too frightened when I say Dublin, too. The first step must be a fresh examination at Westminster. I welcome the fact that a study group in my own party is trying to work out a new policy. It will be difficult. I have the privilege now, as a humble Back Bencher, of speaking my own mind without having to take into account anything except my own conscience and judgment about matters.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of his remarks, that hon. Members must have some regard in the speeches that we make to the impression created in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of what is only too much in the front of my mind. We have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, to the people of the whole United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I approach the matter.
I know that there is some pressure to end what is called bipartisanship. Pressure is being put on the Labour Party to do that. As far as I know there has never been any formal agreement between Government and Opposition, whichever party was in office. Certainly there is strong disagreement between the Government and the Labour Party—expressed this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield—on the remedies for the economic and social ills of Northern Ireland, but I have never seen any advantage, and I see none now, in deliberately trying to magnify differences between the Government and the Opposition on the political future of that country, if by taking some steps together we can relieve any part of the torment.
Therefore, I believe that we should begin with a fresh discussion at Westminster. If the Government thought it right to ask the parties to join in, I hope that my party and the others would do so. Nothing should be excluded from such a debate. At present every fresh discussion is constrained by self-imposed limitations—justifiable limitations, I admit. There is the fear that anything that we may do will lead to the IRA being encouraged to renewed effort, the feeling that, of course, we must give no encouragement to it or to any terrorist organisation. There is no doubt that that has inhibited discussion in the House. There is the further limitation of the solemn guarantee, given by statute of this House, that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority so desire.
None of those self-imposed limitations can be taken lightly, nor should they be set aside without the fullest consideration. But circumstances may arise in which they should be set aside, in the interests of everybody, including the Protestants in Northern Ireland. In my view, the time is ripe for a fundamental, free and open discussion here at Westminster. That is the first step.
When such discussions are concluded between the parties or in whatever way the debate is to take place the Government should formulate their new policy and seek the support of Parliament for their general intentions. They should then call the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives together in some kind of convention to hear

1051
our intentions. This is where we change the boundaries. They would then have to consider what our intentions were. That is how I wish to see us approach the matter. The Secretary of State has set up a new political advisory committee to which he says he can refer any matter. I understand that on its own initiative it can consider these matters. Perhaps it would be an appropriate body. I do not know.
My hope is that if the policy that emerges at Westminster is that Northern Ireland should, in the fullness of time, take responsibility for its own future the Government will state to whatever body they call together that it is not the intention of the Westminster Government to produce further proposals, plans or solutions—no more action, with the consequential immediate reaction of dismissing what is said. The people of Northern Ireland would themselves produce their own plans, in the knowledge that they would have to decide under what constitution they wished to live together, how they would combat terrorism and how they would settle the future of their own country and of their own children.
Britain would clearly play an important part in this continuing process. We should need to indicate how we should help Northern Ireland to this end and what we should do when Northern Ireland finally became independent. For example, we should need, both morally and to secure a political solution, to give firm undertakings about social security obligations and such matters as pensions. We should regard ourselves as having a substantial obligation to build up the economy in Northern Ireland.
Clearly, a Northern Ireland citizenship is an essential element. Some Northern Ireland citizens already hold two passports—a United Kingdom passport and a passport of the Republic. In an independent Northern Ireland all those living there would, by virtue of residence, be citizens of Northern Ireland, but Britain should also undertake that if they so chose they would also be British citizens, with all the rights of British citizens.
"What, then, of the guarantee?" I shall be asked—and rightly asked, because it is not a matter to be dismissed. I believe that the best way of meeting the fears or aspirations of those who care deeply about the question is that when the necessary steps have been taken—step by step over a period, and not immediately—in the fulness of time the guarantee that we have given should be transferred from the territory to the people. Everyone who wished to remain a British citizen would be free to do so.
My purpose is that the people of Northern Ireland should recognise that their best hope for the future lies in finding a solution to their own problems, and that Britain's policy should increasingly, step by step, move in that direction, while we fulfil all our responsibilities.
I propose, as one of the series of steps that should be taken, a Bill of Rights to be drawn up, after discussion, to safeguard every citizen. We should be willing to enact it at Westminster and pass it to the people of Northern Ireland when they become fully independent.
It would be a matter for discussion of the way in which the new Northern Ireland Parliament would be elected. I am told that proportional representation would not help to bring a broken community together. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South recognises that that is what he represents today—a broken community. It is his task
1052
and mine to see how it can be brought together. Proportional representation should be examined to see whether it could be of value, but I am told that it would not.
As for legislation enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament—here I come to the qualification of my word "broadly"—it could be provided that there would be a right of appeal from any act of the Northern Ireland Parliament that seemed to infringe the constitution of the Bill of Rights. That appeal could be to a bench of judges from the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the Republic.
As an independent country, Northern Ireland would be able to make its own decision about joining international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Community, the Common Market and, if it wished, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. An independent Northern Ireland might find considerable advantage in having a direct voice as a member of such bodies as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I emphasise that such changes must be carefully prepared and presented, and above all must be carried out stage by stage and not in a rush.
The two communities would recognise that they would no longer be sheltered from discharging their own responsibilities and that their future was in their own hands. By virtue of its numbers, the Protestant majority especially would have a great responsibility and a historic opportunity.
Dublin's attitude would be crucial. There is no need for it to abandon—indeed, there is no point in calling on it to abandon—its cherished hope of eventual unification. But that is not a policy; it is an aspiration. Dublin's help is needed before this or any other plan can succeed.
If the forms of government devised by both communities permitted them to recognise their mutual interdependence and common identity, support for the IRA would dwindle, and so would the terrorism that now disfigures the country, although I am not optimistic enough to believe that it will ever entirely disappear. However, the suffering people of Northern Ireland would be able to lead a normal life for almost the first time, without the Army having to be called in regularly to support the civil power. So the result would be that our Army would be able honourably to give up those onerous duties that it has carried out for so many years.
I am aware that similar proposals have been canvassed from time to time. I am sure that what I have said will be dismissed and attacked from both sides. My purpose is to restart a political discussion that is badly needed, to get away from sloganising and to propose at least one possible way forward that would safeguard both Protestant and Catholic and enable them to recognise their interdependence.
I conclude by reminding those who will dismiss what I have said that, for all the commitments of successive British Governments, the people of the Province still seem to have no prospect of an orderly life in a thriving society, that the record of the past 12 years amply demonstrates the futility of contriving in Westminster solutions that cannot be imposed, and that therefore the time is ripe for the people of Northern Ireland to begin the process of working out their own future.
Their success will depend on nothing less than the supreme task—we do not underrate the difficulty—of establishing a common identity for themselves. With our

1053
encouragement, and by taking the process step by step, they can do so, especially if we remember the painful and tragic lessons that we have all learnt as a result of the last 12 years.
At the very least we should now talk freely among ourselves at Wesminster without inhibition of self-imposed constraints. At the very best we have another chance. In all seriousness I say, for God's sake let us take it.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

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

  1.Matrimonial Homes and Property Act 1981

  2.Industrial Diseases (Notification) Act 1981

  3.Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1981

  4.Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 1981.

  5.Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act 1981

  6.Fisheries Act 1981

  7.Horserace Betting Levy Act 1981

  8.Insurance Companies Act 1981

  9.Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981

  10.Social Security Act 1981

  11.Representation of the People Act 1981

  12.British Railways (Pension Schemes) Act 1981

  13.Whitehaven Harbour Act 1981

  14.Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  Question again proposed.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford>: I know that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will not take it amiss when I say that I listened to his comments with great sorrow rather than with anger. I felt that we were back to the early 1970s.
  I shall not take the time of the House to deal with the error that was apparent at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he said that the troops were sent to Northern Ireland to protect the Roman Catholic minority in the Province and that he was asked to do so by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He will agree that the most important reason for sending in the troops was that the RUC was under great pressure because of the influence of the street agitators. That fact must be put clearly on record.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman couched his argument in almost clerical if not censorious terms, his tones did not veil his counsel of despair. Any proposal that causes Ulster to cease to be part of the United Kingdom, to cease to be British, is the consequence of a counsel of despair. That is my underlying objection to the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's duty is to defend and govern every part of the United Kingdom. It is not the duty of the Government
  1054
  to expect a helpful reaction from the Province of Ulster. The duty of any Government is to defend and govern Ulster, as it would any other part of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Gentleman's main thesis was independence, although he referred to it as "broad" independence. Independence is not an option for Northern Ireland, for one basic reason. The people of Northern Ireland do not want independence. It is as simple as that. We shall not be disinherited. We shall not accept independence as a viable option for the future of the Province.
  One could expand on that, but I shall make only two simple points. In Ulster we recognise that the two greatest political and economic power blocs in the world are so anti-Ulster and pro-Irish—and I use the word "Irish" in he Republican sense—that it would be only a matter of time before the political and economic pressures exerted by the EEC and the United States made Ulster independence untenable and unworkable. We have ample evidence that, de facto, America and the EEC treat the island of Ireland as one—if not in law, in fact.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the EEC recently debated some of Northern Ireland's problems it passed a resolution that was sympathetic to Northern Ireland. It pointed out clearly that its sympathy was with the victims of violence rather than with the perpetrators of it.
  Mr. Bradford: I am aware of that, but it is not the point that I am making. Both America and the EEC envisage, desire and are working for a time when the island of Ireland will be one entity. I am afraid that that is a simple fact.
  I do not intend to offer a precis to the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but I wish to make a further comment about it. He made the incredible statement that the people of Northern Ireland could remain British and yet that Ulster as a territory would not remain within the United Kingdom. How can one be a citizen without a country? That is what would happen. 'We in Ulster would be citizens without a country territorially and geographically, as Northern Ireland ceased to be part of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Gentleman's observations were fascinating, because obviously they were geared to severing the link between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom. The observations are fascinating, since they come only months after his Government added to the seats available to the Province. It is understandable that the Northern Ireland peope find it impossible to trust what is said in this House at any time. The right hon. Gentleman must face that problem. He goes in one direction on one occasion and in a different direction on another not much later.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly said that there was a battle for the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. There are two battles. There is a battle for the mind of the minority community and another for the mind of the majority community. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to concentrate on the battle for the mind of the majority. The House appears to have conceded the battle for the mind of the minority. That is not helpful.
  We should address ourselves to the task of trying to convince the people of Northern Ireland who are part of

  1055
  the minority community. I am speaking of the religious minority. The terms are sometimes confused. The political minority and the religious minority are two entities. That must be recognised. The House has conceded the battle for the mind of the religious minority. We should be trying to convince the preponderance of that religious minority that there is a future for them within the United Kingdom as Ulstermen and British citizens.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman's protestations would impress me more if it were not for the fact that for 50 years the Protestant majority held the right to influence the mind of the religious minority and failed signally to do so. I cannot, therefore, be persuaded now that we should concern ourselves too much with the majority.
  Mr. Bradford: I shall not be tempted down that avenue. Only as far back as 1920 one-third of the community, encouraged by the hierarchy of its own religion, sent a little card to Stormont saying that it would not appoint a chaplain, take one-third of the police force, and so on, in spite of the First Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland being a Roman Catholic.
  One could go on ad infinitum, listing and cataloguing ways in which the minority, at the inception of the State, refused to make it work—a ship with one-third of its crew mutinying, aided and abetted by one of the two chaplains on board. That is what we had in 1920. Let us not go down that avenue. It is unfruitful and unhelpful.
  I shall return to my argument about the battle for the minds. The war for the religious minority should be fought and not conceded. However, if it is conceded one assumes that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland will have their right to remain British removed at some given time in the future. The right to remain British will be bulldozed out of existence and they will never be able to contemplate a time when they will remain unceasingly within the United Kingdom. That is what it means to abdicate the battle for the mind of the majority in asking them to accept that one day, at an unnamed date in the future, they will cease to be British. It is no good saying that that will be some time in the far vistas of the future, because by espousing a preference for Irish unity now the British majority in the Province will be disinherited progressively. It is disinheritance by progressive severance and a wounding inch by inch. That wounding festers with treachery.
  Earlier, as the Secretary of State adumbrated his proposals for the council in Ulster, I could not help feeling that those proposals made Pandora's box look like a fragrant powder pack in some attractive female's bag. He will be dealing with Pandora's box if he pursues his proposals. We shall have a hotchpotch of people discussing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, with which the House is ill at ease, let alone a group of untutored councillors and nominees. We shall be dealing with scrutinising legislation when the House should be offering more time to scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation here, where the laws are made. We shall be talking about considering the future Government for Northern Ireland when the Secretary of State knows that no reconciliation is possible between two conflicting religious and political philosophies—Unionism and
  1056
  Republicanism. As those two philosophies are irreconcilable, what is the point of considering them again and again?
  The proposals pose many questions. The first is what is the "substantial following" to which the Secretary of State referred? What did he mean by that? If he is talking about the substantial following that was suggested by a "recent poll", does he mean a recent local government election, the last Westminster election, or the European Parliament election? What substantial following does he mean? Which election will he use to determine that?
  The second query is, what will the talking shop do to help solve the problems of housing, education and social services? What extra control will be placed in the hands of Ulster people over those vital services? What will it do to remove the exploitation that is apparent in area boards? What will it do to solve unemployment? How will the Secretary of State reflect the view of that council when he reports to the House? Will he reflect the majority view? In that case it will be a Unionist view, because the Official Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party received 60 per cent. of the vote in the last election in Ulster. Will he once again try to concoct a consensus?
  The most serious problem is that such a council will compound in the minds of people on the mainland—here I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, SouthEast—that there is something special and different about Ulster that separates it from Cornwall, Devon, Newcastle, Glasgow and other places. The only fundamental difference is that we are giving a credibility to a political minority in one part of the United Kingdom that we would not dare give to any other part. That is a difference that should not exist.
  I know that I shall not obtain much agreement, perhaps from either side, when I offer three observations on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Now is not the time to reduce the powers or measures in that Act. It is not the time to dilute the effect of the measures. It is a time to increase the powers available to the courts and to safeguard law-abiding society from IRA propaganda that is often imposed on Ulster and the mainland by the official media, often inadvertently, but, alas, always successfully on behalf of the IRA.
  There is a need to increase the powers of the court and to safeguard us from needless IRA propaganda. I suggest that there is a case for including the Treason Act 1351 in the relevant schedule of the emergency provisions Act. There is a need for the ultimate deterrent against murderers and bombers, and that is capital punishment. Capital punishment would be possible under the Treason Act if it were included in the relevant schedule.
  I accept that we could not apply the 1351 Act straight because of the problems about jury trials. A jury trial would be needed, and there are difficulties about jury trials. Incidentally, the jury trial problem arose not through intimidation to jurors or witnesses but because the Republican lawyers were not happy that they could secure a sufficiently non-biased jury for trying IRA prisoners. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we do not have jury trials. Although we could not include the 1351 Act straight, it could be included in the schedule, thereby obtaining capital punishment as an important deterrent against terrorism.
  There is a need to deny terrorists the possibility of ventilating their views in newspapers, magazines, on the

  1057
  radio and on television, either directly or through a non-proscribed sister organisation. The Ulster people have been insulted again and again by spokesmen for Sinn Fein appearing on television and the radio spewing out venom, poison and hatred on behalf of IRA convicts. The coverage appears to be endless.
  The media in Ulster and on the mainland made the fundamental error of giving the first hunger strike all the propaganda that it desired. Thankfully, after Christmas they denied the second hunger strike the propaganda and coverage that they had afforded the first. Until Bobby Sands was elected a Member of Parliament the media exercised a prudent control, but they could not ignore his election to Parliament.
  We must do something by statute to curb the ventilation of IRA propaganda, either directly or indirectly. We shall not be unique, because the Republic does not permit the publication of direct comments by terrorists and those involved in murder and bombing. We need a strengthening of the law in those two respects.
  We need to destroy the morale of the IRA, which, when it eventually evaporates in the face of United Kingdom courage and resolution, will render emergency provisions unnecessary. We must destroy the morale of the IRA. We must put its objective beyond its reach, its touch and its attainment. That will not happen through the statement made by the Secretary of State on 30 June about the Maze prison. It will have the opposite effect to eroding the morale of the IRA. It will encourage the IRA to extract more concessions from the Government.
  From January to the present time the Government have avoided the debacle of providing an information and elucidation service, which they provided during the first hunger strike. I earnestly plead with the Secretary of State not to make the mistake that he made prior to January. The signs are that he will make, that mistake again. The IRA will play him along until his enthusiasm to end the hunger strikes is such that the IRA will be offered the substance of political or special status, if not the name.
  I wish to put three points to the Secretary of State. First, what new improvements are essential in the Maze prison to procure the humanitarian and progressive conditions—in what is Europe's most advanced prison—that the Secretary of State says already exist? Secondly, precisely what are the defects in the Maze prison that render it inhuman and primitive? Thirdly, how can further improvements be justified in advance of reforms in other British and Northern Ireland prisons without that being seen as a concession to the demands of the hunger strikers? I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would respond to those three points.
  Perhaps improvements are required to end the alarming spate of anorexia nervosa that appears to be a Provincial plague. It is not a United Kingdom plague. It may have something to do with the proximity of the Maze prison to the animal and bird house that is close to the prison. They are all catching the slimmers' disease at the Maze prison and in Armagh. It is clear that English, Welsh and Scottish prisoners do not suffer from that disease.
  One improvement is essential. There should be a phasing out of those prisoners who still enjoy compound life in the Maze prison. They still enjoy all the trappings of political or special category status. That would be a qualitative, not a quantitative, improvement. There should
  1058
  be further cellular accommodation, so that prisoners now in compounds can be made to serve like the criminals they are, within the full control of the prison administration.
  It is wrong to invite hunger strikers to cease their hunger strike—no matter whether they be Protestants, Roman Catholics, so-called Loyalists or Republicans. I care not who they are. If thy are murderers and criminals they are nothing but those. To ask them to cease their hunger strike on the basis that improvement will ensue is purely and simply wheeling and dealing. Let us put no other title than that on it. If we say that further improvements will come if the strikers do this or that, we shall be wheeling and dealing. At the moment the substance of special category is being offered if the strike ends. The time will come when the IRA will not worry about a name. It will say, with Shakespeare, "What's in a name?".
  Part III of the 1978 Act deals with the public use of firearms and uniforms in a public place by prescribed organisations. I am bound to say to the Secretary of State that there is nothing more galling to the people whom I represent than to have to watch on television IRA paramilitary funerals that deliberately flout the law. He may argue that he has to choose the lesser of two evils., and that injudiciously to confront the thousands who congregate at the funerals would render the position worse than simply to let it pass.
  I warn the right hon. Gentleman that the IRA is a past master at taking an inch, then a foot, and then a mile. If, as he said, he is prepared to fight the IRA within the law, let him apply the law that no uniforms or guns should be produced in public places—whether during a funeral or otherwise. If he allows that law to go unapplied in the Province the IRA will soon find other laws to flout in the face of the Government and the much-beleaguered people of the Province. We need a new policy on security forces' involvement when uniforms, guns and all the trappings of the paramilitary demonstrations emerge in the Province. What new security measures will be taken when such displays occur?
  I am disappointed about the future of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland will always insist on being British. Because of that resolve and determination I am optimistic, even if sometimes sad. There is only one way to secure peace in the Province, and that is to put the objective of the IRA beyond reach. Nothing would deal them a more stinging and more damaging blow than to take Northern Ireland and either give it a Parliament who reflect the method of Government in the United Kingdom, or to bring Northern Ireland fully into the United Kingdom and treat it as full members of this historic and marvellous kingdom.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The former Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who, during what he regarded as a crucial period, was kept in power by the Official Unionists and the Liberals, made a bitter and strange response to the Official Unionists in his speech today. I understood from today's press that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was boycotting today's debate and organising a demonstration in Northern Ireland. By doing so, he thought that he would steal the thunder of the Secretary of State. The right hon.

  1059
  Member for Cardiff, South-East has outshone even the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He has certainly stolen the headlines in tomorrow's papers.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech will create greater agony, not less, for the people of Northern Ireland. No matter what his intentions may be, his contribution will lead to further hardship in the Province. I did not like the way that he criticised the Ulster people for intransigence and obduracy. During the past 11 or 12 years of the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign they have shown remarkable restraint, patience and forbearance. There is no other part of the United Kingdom and no other part of the world where people would have put up with such gruesome, horrible terror and tried to continue with their daily lives. Full tribute should be paid to them. Instead of virtually giving them the boot out of the United Kingdom, they should be respected as worthy members of the United Kingdom.
  I feel annoyed with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East for two reasons. First, he mentioned a Bill of Rights. It is five years ago or more since I advocated that a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom, or even for Northern Ireland alone, should be introduced. A Labour Government were in office. My move was rebuffed by that Government. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Why did not that Government introduce such a Bill? They showed no sympathy for the proposal.
  I still advocate a Bill of Rights. I advocate a Bill of Rights based even on the American model, so that all in Northern Ireland will be protected. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Unionists—everyone in Northern Ireland—should be protected by a Bill of Rights as wide as the United States constitution, which tries to protect people of all races and religions.
  Secondly, I have argued for years, in the House and outside, and to the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was a member and the Government whom he subsequently led, that the religious apartheid in education in Northern Ireland in schools and teacher training colleges should be brought to an end. That would have been a simple decision to make and the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman led could have made it. However, he shied away from it. Now that he is out of office he can make remarks that will only add to the tribulations of the Ulster people.
  I am sorry that the Labour Party, which prides itself on being a liberal party, has rejected the two suggestions that I have made in all seriousness. However, I still hope that they will be adopted. I hope that the Conservative Government will adopt them.
  I regret that when Ulster people make reasonable suggestions they are dismissed out of hand and that subsequently spokesmen for either the Conservative or Labour Parties attack Ulster politicians for being obdurate. There are many obdurate politicians inside the Labour Party, according to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Indeed, he would have them out of the Labour Party altogether, as he considers that they are not true members of the party. I am more liberal than that. I welcome everyone to stay within a party so that there is a wide expression of opinion. That is why I think that all people in Northern Ireland should stay within the present boundaries and within the United Kingdom.
  1060
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly declared that the border was in the hearts and minds of the Ulster people. I agree entirely with that statement. As I said recently during a meeting in Northern Ireland, the existence of Northern Ireland does not depend only on a line drawn on a map. Nor does it depend on the force of arms. The Ulster people, by tradition, history and aspiration, are totally separate from the Irish Republic, which operates under—I quote from a recent edition of The Economist—
  "a rigid and theocratic constitution".
  They have no wish to be part of the Republic. They wish to remain British citizens. The Labour Party policy document seeks to commit the Labour Party to a united Ireland in the long run. That is a damaging policy. It means that the Labour Party is prepared to envisage the removal of citizenship from 1½ million British persons now living in Northern Ireland. That includes 1 million Protestants and many of the Roman Catholics who wish to remain British citizens.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have read the statement, and I happen to know what it says.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done so. The editorial of The Times refers to the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party. It states:
  "The Ulster question goes to the heart of allegiance and
  national identity…It is something for which moderate men have recourse to extremes."
  The Times is right to give the warning that we cannot dismiss the Ulster people in the way that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East chooses to do.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he would not be influenced by doctrines of despair, but the political move announced by the right hon. Gentleman is clearly dictated by the foolish desire to be seen to be doing something. I regard it as a blunder. I said so when he was making his speech. I was castigated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East for expressing my opinion at that time. None the less, I was right to do so.
  A Northern Ireland Council, as an advisory body, would be powerless. Its responsibility would be merely to give advice. There would be no duty on the Government to take that advice. Members of the council would be paid. No doubt that would induce some to co-operate with the Government by joining the council. It would be a talking shop. That is why I dismissed the suggestion some years ago when it was originally made.
  If the council had been in existence a year ago, would it have changed the cold-hearted Government policy that has created unemployment of over 100,000 in the Province? Would it have built the homes that are desperately needed and that are not being built, because of Government cuts? Would it have forced the Government to change their policies on hospitals and schools? Would it have led to the provision of beds for the elderly in our hospitals and to the building of schools for young people? I do not think that the Secretary of State will be able to answer those questions in the affirmative. An advisory body could not have changed Government policy in any respect.
  It is no use the Secretary of State's trying to suggest to the Ulster people that this is a great move forward. If there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should hold an election in the Province. That would not take eight or nine months. An

  1061
  election could be held and the result would be obtained within a relatively short time. That is what we need. We need an election to a legislature at Stormont. We need a proper democratic legislative body to take on some of the responsibility for governing the Province and to make decisions on unemployment, housing, schools and hospitals.
  It is not possible to share power with the SDLP, which is an out-and-out nationalist party. It is a party that runs off to Dublin whenever the opportunity presents itself. It is committed to a United Ireland as quickly as possible. If one cannot gel: power sharing in the Labour Party, and if one cannot get power sharing between the Labour and Tory Parties in Westminster, surely it is unreasonable for Westminster to expect power sharing among irreconcilables in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Winnick: As I understand it, although the hon. Gentleman is opposed to power sharing he accepts the supremecy of the decisions reached by Parliament. If Parliament decided that power sharing was right, surely the citizens, including the majority community, must accept that, otherwise loyalty to Britain amounts to little. That loyalty would be only on the basis of approving what one wants to approve and not otherwise.
  Mr. Kilfedder: There are many examples of Parliament's making an unwise decision. Normally it does not take long for such decisions to be changed. When it is out of office, Labour tells the Conservatives that it will change an unacceptable decision as soon as it gets into office. Labour goes out into the country to argue against the present Government's policy. That is what I am committed to. I am a Member of Parliament and a British citizen. I support this country and I support most of the decisions of the House. However, I am prepared to argue against the decisions of the House anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere and to make sure that decisions are changed, if they are foolish. Labour does that time after time.
  I should like to share in the tribute to the police, the UDR and the Regular Army, whose members are serving in Northern Ireland. They have shown great courage. I do not believe that one can thank them too often for the job that they are doing in the Province.
  It should be remembered that in the recent election to the Dail two hunger strikers were returned to that Parliament. Those people were from border constituencies, which seems to confirm that bandit territory is not only in and around Crossmaglen. There are areas in the Irish Republic where the Provisional IRA can operate easily and can launch an attack across the border against people in Northern Ireland. It is high time that the Irish Republic extradited wanted men from the Republic to Northern Ireland. Otherwise it is no use the new Prime Minister of the Irish Republic making conciliatory statements. He has to give proof that he wishes to maintain friendly relations with this country. He can do that easily by extraditing the wanted terrorists who are operating on the other side of the border.
  The IRA is no friend of any parliamentarian, whether in this country or in the Irish Republic. If it managed to destroy Northern. Ireland by one means or another it would operate to destroy the Irish Republic to create an all-Ireland Marxist republic.
  One matter should be noted. A number of IRA gunmen who murdered policemen in the Irish Republic were
  1062
  sentenced to death. In the most recent case, that sentence was commuted to a term of imprisonment of 40 years without remission. That compares unfavourably—or favourably—with Northern Ireland, because in Northern Ireland a convicted terrorist receives a lighter sentence. He receives remission and, worst of all, he is eligible for remission that is more favourable than that available to other criminals in Northern Ireland. Surely that should be ended. The Government might learn something from the Irish Republic. They should make sure that terrorists who commit murder receive sentences such as 40 years without remission.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: It is fashionable in this kind of debate to state party political policies. Therefore, I have gone back to our manifesto of over two years ago. I have welcomed the debate so far, particularly the contributions of certain distinguished Members who, like me, are frustrated by the continual entrenched attitudes that have been shown—the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was such a contribution—by certain Northern Ireland political leaders in the House and elsewhere. They have rightly challenged the continuation of that criticism of British Governments, whether they are of a Labour or a Conservative hue.
  Our record in Northern Ireland, over the past 10 or 11 years, whatever it may have been over the past centuries, has been one of honest endeavour. We have tried to do the right thing. Things have gone wrong on occasions, but it has not been for lack of trying. It is about time the elected Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies recognised that. I can understand how frustrated many hon. Members representing other constituencies in Great Britain feel about the present situation.
  In our manifesto at the last general election we proposed, as an interim measure, that a 15- to 20-member advisory council should be elected by the people of Northern Ireland using proportional representation—the single transferable vote. I do not know why the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was not convinced about proportional representation. Obviously we did not win that battle during the Lib-Lab pact, but weshall continue to fight for it. Further, we stated in our manifesto:
  "Such a council would be large enough to let every significant viewpoint have a voice but small enough for all its members to have real discussion with each other as well as with the Secretary of State and other political representatives.
  The council would:

  1.Represent the views of the people of Northern Ireland to the Secretary of State and advise him accordingly, and

  2.discuss how a constitutional conference should be set up to consider the means by which a generally acceptable form of Government for the Province could be developed.

  There must be no capitulation to violence. Direct rule must continue for the time being. The civil Power must be given military assistance for as long as required. Britain will not force Northern Ireland to unite with the Republic of Ireland. All elections …should be by the PR(STV) system. Continuing emphasis must be placed on the achievement of full human rights."
  As the House heard today, the Secretary of State announced the formation of such a council not by direct election, as we would have preferred; the members are to be elected indirectly, in that they are to be taken from the various councils from Westminster and from the European Parliament. I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North that it would have been better to go for a directly

  1063
  elected council. I also think that a membership of 50 would be too big. I am afraid that that may lead to the sort of squabbles that we have seen in this House when there have been only 11 people involved! It might have been better if the number were about 20.
  Apart from those criticisms, I welcome the action that the Secretary of State has taken and I hope that it will work. He is right in saying that it is of vital importance to involve political leaders in Northern Ireland in a more meaningful way than at present. I pray that they will respond.
  I share the view held by many people in political life in Northern Ireland and in the South that while the hunger strike continues in the Maze any further significant political initiatives would be better not to be embarked upon. It is how to end that hunger strike without conceding political status that is the immediate problem.
  In his statement on the hunger strikers in the Maze on 30 June the Secretary of State said, on page 5:
  "there is scope for yet further development of the regime within the Maze."
  After three visits to that prison, I do not know what further concessions can be permitted without putting the governor of the prison and the prison officers who are charged with maintaining security in an almost impossible position. I tried to make that point at Question Time the other day.
  I did not realise this until I went to the Maze about a month ago, but allowing prisoners to wear civilian clothing, which we provide, means that prison officers have great difficulty in distinguishing between prisoners and civilians working in the prison. There has been the break-out at the Crumlin Road gaol, for which no doubt someone will be held responsible. It was also put to me that if we give hunger strikers and other prisoners their own clothing, a problem arises when it has to be cleaned. Will they insist on wearing a military-style uniform? Such matters are difficult. If there is to be greater freedom in the wings, control of the prison will almost be lost.
  That is why I support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) for an inquiry into the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. That is the area that we should be tackling. We should take careful note of the report on the conference held on 13 June, although one or two quotations are not satisfactory. It was chaired by Lord Gardiner, a distinguished former Lord Chancellor. We should consider particularly the paragraphs relating to the Diplock courts. I believe that it would be preferable to have three judges and not one at the initial stages of the hearing. We should also consider the recommendations on scheduled offences. Those are two areas that an inquiry could look into.
  It is the system of justice operating in Northern Ireland that normally friendly countries such as the United States and members of the EEC do not understand. They do not understand why we have done away with the jury system. I understand why, but in some areas we may be able to bring it back. That matter is also discussed in the document. We should try to allay legitimate fears expressed by our friends.
  When I went around the Maze with my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Party, we saw the hunger striker who is now in his fiftieth-odd day. We asked him whether there was any concession within the regime, apart
  1064
  from political status, that would persuade him to come off his hunger strike. The answer was "No". He made it quite clear that there was none. We asked him why he believed that he should have special status. His reply was that it was because he was sentenced by special courts that were different from those that normally operate. That is an argument that is being used in the United States and elsewhere, and is another reason to support the amendment. I do not see what could be lost by an inquiry, and there is a lot to be gained. I do not believe that within the prison regime we can make further meaningful concessions.
  I accept, of course, that we must continue with direct rule. We have no choice. However, efforts to establish an elected, devolved Administration must continue. On 23 May The Economist, which has been very good on Northern Ireland, had a long article entitled, "A Bridge to Ireland", which set out a course of action that appealed to me. The Government or their advisory council, when it is set up, should study it seriously.
  When the situation permits, the Government will need to force the pace. From the opinion polls in The Sunday Times last weekend, of which we must take some note, it appears that, properly and carefully presented, a power-sharing Executive may be endorsed at a referendum, despite the likely wrecking tactics of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who does not appear even to wish to grace us with his presence.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman pays considerable attention to an opinion poll in The Sunday Times of about 1,000 people. An opinion poll was carried out of the whole electorate of Northern Ireland a short time before that, which made it clear that they did not want power sharing.
  Mr. Ross: I am not at all sure that that is so. I believe that opinion in Northern Ireland is far more moderate than is sometimes shown by election results. People are, unfortunately, forced into one corner or another. I believe that we should put the matter to the test. I believe that another border poll is due in 1983.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
  Mr. Ross: It could be.
  Mr. Powell: That is different.
  Mr. Ross: We said that we would have one every 10 years, so we could have one in 1983. Let us bring it forward one year to 1982 and include a question about the acceptability of a Northern Ireland Assembly involving power sharing at Executive level. Let us also state our willingness to appoint Northern Ireland politicians at Westminister to the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that that will meet with the approval of hon. Members.
  We are always in trouble, because we are so British trying to run the Irish, or some section of the Irish. It took the right hon. Member for Mansfield a long time, and he now knows a lot about Northern Ireland, but it is a difficult situation for people going in raw. If we are to increase the number of elected Northern Ireland Members to 17, why not at least involve some of them working the Northern Ireland Office from Stormont? I also repeat that I want to see elections on a proportional representation basis.
  I very much welcome the election of Dr. Garret Fitzgerald as Taoiseach. I hope that we shall quickly get down to talks with him. His approach to the problems of

  1065
  the North over the past few years have a great deal to commend them. Some sort of loose federalism with dual rights of citizenship is the answer in the long run, but it will have to be a careful step-by-step approach—and I had noted that down before the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke. Any talk now of a united Ireland is profoundly mistaken.
  I also reject as unworkable possible changes in the boundaries of the border, the idea of which was recently floated in The Observer by Conor Cruise O'Brien. That we should seriously suggest that 30,000 or more Protestants in Fermanagh and South Tyrone should face upheaval if they will not accept Dublin rule is totally unthinkable in the 1980s.
  The preservation of freedom as we know it in Ireland is under serious threat, and that applies just as much to the South as to the North. It is time that our friends in the Western world understood that simple fact. We must all feel great sympathy for Members of the Protestant population in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and elsewhere along the border. They clearly feel threatened as possibly never before, and that is appreciated and understood by responsible Catholics in the Province, of which there are many. Hon. Members know them and know their views on the result of the election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and their absolute horror at what happened then and since.
  I am sure that every hon. Member is angered by the likes of Mayor Koch and others, who talk of England getting out of Ireland. That is sheer nonsense. Many of us are interrelated, and it is about time that they understood that. I have two Irish grandsons. When they return to Southern Ireland I do not want them to go to a country that is on the verge of civil war. It is interesting that the new Foreign Secretary in Eire was actually born in England.
  The people of Britain desperately want a solution. It is the duty of politicians of all parties and in all quarters to work together to provide it.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made a significant contribution to the debate. He started by saying that the people of Northern Ireland should be treated as if they could make up their own minds and that their opinions should be listened to and respected. However, it, unfortunately became apparent from what he then said that he had not paid sufficient heed to them himself.
  Opinion polls have been mentioned, but the one thing that they have consistently shown over the past few years is that neither the Prostestant nor the Catholic community supports an independent Ulster. To suggest that that might be a way of getting the IRA to put down their guns and for peace and prosperity to come to Northern Ireland is to live in a dream world. I cannot imagine how the former Prime Minister, having some experience of Northern Ireland, could possibly suggest that that was a way out. He said that there was a pattern in Northern Ireland that politicians who made suggestions about what could take place usually found that very soon after they had made them someone would reject their suggestions out of hand. The two hon. Members who spoke after him did exactly that, and I make the hat trick.
  The right hon. Gentleman's suggestions were rejected before he ever stood up. The border poll in Northern Ireland has been mentioned. If one believes in taking the
  1066
  view of the people of Northern Ireland, that was a most decisive vote in favour of the proposition that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Almost 600,000 electors in Northern Ireland chose that as the future constitutional position, whereas a mere 6,000 chose to be part of the Republic of Ireland. It must therefore be made clear at the outset that the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and they will not have that position eroded. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) pointed out, such a suggestion would be seen by the people of Northern Ireland in general as a halfway house to a united Ireland because their position would be so much weaker in an independent Ulster.
  The comments of the official Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), seemed to indicate that he was slightly embarrassed by some of the remarks of members of his party and by the content of a report from one of their study groups. If he was not embarrassed he certainly should have been, because there is a grave inconsistency in their position. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self-determination, yeti he determines that they should go along one particular road—towards a united Ireland. To help them go there he will try to win their hearts and minds. He neglected to tell us how he intended to win their hearts and minds towards the goal of a united Ireland, but he was certainly saying that he intended to win them away from wanting to be a part of the United Kingdom. That is the logic of his position and he will have to live with it. It is totally inconsistent to say that one believes in self-determination and then to tell the people of Northern Ireland that that is the way that they will have to go. If his answer is a united Ireland by consent I can tell him that there is no consent in Northern Ireland to the idea of a united Ireland and that he will have to think of other policies to deal with the matter.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made some suggestions about political progress. He proposed what might be described as a talking shop or gabbling house to deal with Northern Ireland's problems. He would give the power of talking to the politicians in Northern Ireland, to invite their views on certain matters and to let them consider legislation. I thought that that was what the 12 Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland were elected to do—although one of them was wont to decline to do so, and there are now only 11. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to give their views on issues. The only suggestion that the Secretary of State made was that his proposal might be used to, look at the future government of Northern Ireland.
  I accept that the Secretary of State is trying to make progress, but I am concerned that the progress that he is trying to make is more in line with the answer that he gave to an intervention—that there would be an opportunity for the people at these talks to have an input into the Dublin joint studies. I wonder whether that is the real motive in this new initiative. It is clear from statements made by the new Prime Minister—the House will excuse me for not using the Gaelic word—of the Republic of Ireland that he wants to have a Northern Ireland Unionist input. Does the Secretary of State intend to give him that input by setting up this consultative assembly or advisory council?
  The Secretary of State referred to the Dublin talks. Here I must at once take issue with him. Members of the

  1067
  Northern Ireland Unionist community were rightly concerned at what took place in Dublin on 8 December. They were concerned from the outset when they saw the high-powered nature of the delegation that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had with them in Dublin. They were concerned when they read the communiqué issued after the talks were completed, which said that
  "the totality of relationships within these islands"
  was to be discussed between the two Governments.
  The word "totality" can mean only one thing. If it is given its dictionary definition, the "totality of relationships" must include the constitutional relationship. If it does, there is a marked inconsistency between the communiqué which the Prime Minister signed and to which the Secretary of State was a party and their comments today and over the past months.
  If the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, when winding up wishes to brush away the confusion that arises as a result of this, he must explain to the people of Northern Ireland from the Dispatch Box what he means by the "totality of relationships". Was that a mistake? Did he not mean the word "totality"? Did he wish to exclude the constitutional relationship? If we were not already alarmed by the nature of the delegation and the words of the communiqu00E9; we should certainly have been alarmed by the words of the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, Brian Lenihan, and the then Prime Minister of the Republic, Charles Haughey. They made it clear that the purpose behind the talks was to move towards some kind of federal or confederal Ireland. The Secretary of State will have to face this because he never answered those remarks when they were made. That is why the Unionist population of Northern Ireland was gravely disturbed by what took place in the Dublin talks and has had no faith in the joint studies arising from them.
  The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who is now absent, referred to what tomorrow's newspaper headlines might be. He suggested that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would probably succeed in getting those headlines. I suspect that he will. On the other hand, the Secretary of State may get them. But then again, given the matter under discussion, it is possible that the newspaper headlines will concern the fact that somebody else has been killed in Northern Ireland. That is as likely as any other eventuality.
  Perhaps we should devote some attention to the situation in Northern Ireland from the point of view of the right to live. More than 2,130 people have been done to death in Northern Ireland. It is easy to say that, as it is so quickly said, but behind that cold statistic there is grave hardship, sadness and despair and a great deal of pain for the tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who have been maimed and mutilated as a result of terrorism in the Province.
  The Liberal spokesman referred to his visit to Her Majesty's prison at Long Kesh and to the fact that there were special arrangements in the courts of Northern Ireland, but one cannot get away from the fact that there are special arrangements in the courts of Northern Ireland because of the very nature of terrorism. It ill becomes the IRA or any other terrorist group to complain about the judicial system which has had to be changed to deal with the terrorism which they themselves have brought forth.
  1068
  As the Secretary of State said, the answer is in their hands. If they stop their terrorism, the normal processes of law and order can apply in Northern Ireland and the normal judicial processes can take place. The Secretary of State can be sure that although the propaganda put forward by the IRA in America and elsewhere may for a time be accepted as the truth—that there is oppression in the Maze prison and there are people who are not being dealt with in a humanitarian manner—at the end of the day the truth will come through.
  Once and for all, the Secretary of State should put compromise out of his mind. He said again today that he has already moved on concessions. Far be it from me to warn him at this stage, when it is too late, but the right hon. Gentleman made an error when he did so, because when he moved from his original position towards the objectives of the IRA he gave the IRA a signal that if it asked for more and protested further it would arrive near or at its goal. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, even at this stage, that further concessions could be made to those who have been responsible for the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland he is once more submitting to terrorism, blackmail and the bully-boy tactics of the IRA.
  I hope that when he replies the Minister of State will make it clear that not one of the five demands put forward by the IRA will be met and that no point will be conceded. Any concession will attract the wrath of the law-abiding Northern Ireland community. They, and I suspect the House, will fully support the Government if they take a strong stand against the IRA.
  I should like to make one comment about Northern Ireland's political future. I have indicated grave doubts about the Secretary of State's plans, founded on the basis that, first, he envisages a non-elected body and, secondly, that it will be without any power. However, while it has no power it will have responsibility, because when it is in operation we shall not be able to tell the people of Stoneyford Street, Lord Street or anywhere else that it does not have responsibility for the subjects on which it speaks.
  Such people will believe that this body will be responsible for health, education and everything else. Its members will also be expected to deal with the constituency problems that will arise. Therefore, they will have to face the brickbats, even though they will have no power to deal with the matters over which they will be asked to deliberate. While the Northern Ireland Office may be happy to be shielded from the effects of its policies, that is not a position into which the Northern Ireland politician would like to get unless he has responsibility to do something about it.
  There is another thing that appals me about the Secretary of State's suggestion. The people of Northern Ireland have made it clear that they want a devolved Government. They want to see accountability in the Province. Northern Ireland Ministers do not receive any votes from the Northern Ireland electorate. That must be changed so that the people who vote can get rid of those who are carrying out policies with which they do not agree. There must be accountability in Northern Ireland.
  The Secretary of State has also suggested that the new Northern Ireland Council should be representative. In what way will it be representative? Will it be established on the basis of the recent local government elections, or the European elections, or the Westminster elections? The Secretary of State should face the obvious conclusion that the best way of achieving a representative group is to elect

  1069
  it through the ballot box. I cannot accept that it will be 18 months before legislation to that effect can go through the House.
  I have no particular reason for believing that the Secretary of State's policy will succeed. I shall wait until I have seen it in more detail before suggesting whether we could participate. I shall at least await the right hon. Gentleman's detailed reaction, but I have very little faith in non-elected bodies with no power.
  It would be wrong for me to finish without making a suggestion. However, I shall not go into detail, because if I were to do so it might be ruled out in some quarters. My suggestion is that the Secretary of State should set up a convention, with clear terms of reference about the report that it should make about a future constitution for Northern Ireland. It should be done on the basis of the 1975 convention. However, that convention failed because it did not have clear terms of reference. It was told to achieve the most widespread support, and it did so. However, after the new convention has presented its report the Secretary of State should put it to the people in a referendum sc that they can decide.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East believes that the people should have the right to decide. He believes that they are mature and responsible and that they should take the decision. Let that referendum be on the same basis as the referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. There should at least be clear terms of reference about the degree of acceptability that is necessary to implement a constitutional proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman establishes such a convention, puts its report to the people in a referendum and achieves the necessary degree of acceptability, le will have the basis to go forward and put such a proposal into operation.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will forgive me if I do not comment immediately on what he said. However, I shall refer to some of his remarks a little later.
  The first essential need is to resolve the hunger strike. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that in his opinion no new initiative could be taken. I do not agree. I have already stated that I am opposed to political status. However, it is important to appreciate—I think that the Government do—that there can be no further political progress until the hunger strike is out of the way. The Secretary of State was right to speak about the violence that has arisen as a result of the hunger strike, as well as the violence done to themselves by those who have engaged in the strike. But it is also necessary to understand the immense harm that will be done to Britain's reputation abroad so long, as the hunger strike continues.
  It may well be argued that people in the United States, France and other democratic countries do not understand our case. That may be so. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding and misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, about the history of Northern Ireland. However, I believe that there is some understanding among people abroad and that, nevertheless, they have come to the view that the British Government could make some concessions that could resolve the hunger strike.
  One factor in all this which should not be overlooked—I do not think that it has been mentioned so far—is the recent by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I understand that a Minister is considering going
  1070
  to the United States to put its case. It is all very well for the Government to tell foreign opinion that the IRA has no support and that the hunger strikers represent an isolated section within Northern Ireland's minority community. Their response will be "But what about the result in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, when the late Mr. Sands received more than 30,000 votes and won the by-election?" Undoubtedly, that has been a factor in the minds of many people, including a number of those in Britain.
  Like my hon. Friends, I believe that steps must he taken to reduce military involvement. I am not in favour of "troops out" and neither, I understand, is the minority community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) explained why the troops went in 12 years ago. We know why they went in and which section of the community they protected at the time. However, we should try to reduce military involvement and to find a political framework in order to work towards an acceptable course for Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East was right to say that the Secretary of State's suggestion was unacceptable. In fact, the initiative is already dead. The moment that the right hon. Gentleman announced his intentions about the advisory council there was comment on my left and comment from other Ulster Members. I remember that about 18 months ago the Secretary of State put forward an initiative. There was a series of exchanges and I was one of the last hon. Members to be called to speak. I said that, given the hostility of Ulster Members, it was obvious that that initiative would not succeed. Unfortunately, ray words turned out to be right. With all respect, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is not likely to meet with any success.
  The reunification of Ireland is desirable. I know that such a view immediately meets with hostility from representatives of the majority community. I understand their hostility and total opposition. None of us has any illusions on that score. However, it should be clearly stated from the Labour Benches that the reunification of Ireland is a desirable objective. I go further than that. It was wrong to partition Ireland in 1921. People speak about needing the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. What consent was there in Ireland, as a whole, to partition?
  I do not wish constantly to refer to history. However, we all know that partition was carried out not on the basis of the historic nine counties of Ulster but on the basis of the Six Counties. That was done deliberately in order to give an inbuilt majority to those in Northern Ireland who opposed any form of unification. That is understandable from that point of view. However, some people might have said that that was a form of gerrymandering. Partition certainly did not receive the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. It is important to put that on the record. People continually imply that we should not do anything about Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boundaries of Northern Ireland were agreed not just by Unionist politicians but by the Government of the then Free State, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Winnick: Partition was not carried out with the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. In 1918 the

  1071
  last election was held which involved the whole of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. It would seem from the result that a majority were not in favour of partition. If anything, in the nine counties of Ulster there was a slight majority for the nationalist Party.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's dedication to Henry VIII's administrative sub-division of the island of Ireland. That is the only basis of the nine counties of Ulster. In 1920 the United Kingdom was partitioned. In 1920 there was no Ireland to be partitioned. The United Kingdom was partitioned with the consent of the United Kingdom's electorate.
  Mr. Winnick: That is one interpretation. Anyone who knows what happened in Southern Ireland in 1922 will know that an agreement arose between the Southern Ireland representatives and Britain which led to the Free State. Although the partition was undertaken prior to the formation of the Irish Free State, I return to my previous point that partition was carried out without the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. They were not asked for their views.
  I understand the need to ensure that the unity of Ireland is carried out by consent and not by terrorism. We do not disagree about that. We do not support or sympathise with the IRA. Even if it were possible, we should not want unification to be brought about by the bomb and the bullet. That is not our wish in any way, shape or form.
  What sort of united Ireland would emerge if it resulted from terrorism and if the majority community in Northern Ireland was dragged into unification with all the resulting bitterness and hostility? What stability would there be in such a united Ireland? We have no illusions. We understand the problems and know how complex the situation is. That must be said, because there is a tendency to accuse the Labour Party of having simplistic solutions, slogans and so on. We understand the difficulties, but we are trying to find an acceptable solution.
  Parliament's decision on power sharing—taken in the 1970s—was right and proper. It is all very well to talk about loyalty to Britain and to describe oneself as a Loyalist, but if Parliament, rightly or wrongly, decided that power sharing should be the form of government in Northern Ireland. the decision should have been accepted. How was power sharing destroyed? It has been said that we argue against the Government. Obviously, when the Conservative Party is in office it argues against us. Sometimes the arguments are fierce and take place both inside and outside the House. There are marches and demonstrations. Power sharing, however, was not destroyed in any constitutional or democratic way. It was destroyed on the streets in 1974 by sections of the majority community.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: It was destroyed by those who often give us lectures about law and order.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right.
  It might be asked why there should be power sharing in Northern Ireland. After all, we do not have power sharing in Britain. However, a unique situation exists in Northern Ireland. It resulted from partition and from all the years of Stormont, in which the minority community
  1072
  believed—with great justification—that it was discriminated against. In Northern Ireland there is proportional representation in local elections. Rightly, we do not have proportional representation in Britain. It exists in Northern Ireland because there is a unique situation there. The only system that is likely to gain the support of the majority of the minority community in Northern Ireland is a form of power sharing. I may be proved wrong—as we can all be—but I believe that the IRA and terrorism can be most effectively undermined by adopting a form of power sharing in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that during the lifetime of the power-sharing Executive—I was in Stormont at that time—violence escalated. There were more bombings, burnings and killings. During the Executive's lifetime the country was nearly destroyed. Power sharing did not seem to gain the Provisional IRA's approval. It wanted the Executive out. In the IRA's language, it regarded the Executive's members as "reactionary Tories", just as it regarded the Government in the South of Ireland as being made up of reactionary Tories. Therefore, the Executive did not solve the problem, and it will not do so now.
  Mr. Winnick: Perhaps some of the violence came from the other side. No doubt some of it came from the IRA. Perhaps its members were fearful that power sharing would succeed and that support for the IRA would be eroded and undermined. We cannot guarantee any system that destroys and erodes terrorism. I can give only my view, namely, that the most effective way of undermining terrorism—I accept that it will not destroy it—is to have a system of power sharing in Northern Ireland.
  I therefore believe that power sharing should be put forward for Northern Ireland, if not by the Conservative Government, then certainly by the next Labour Government. However, we should do that with a warning that if power sharing, approved in the normal constitutional democratic manner by the British Parliament, were destroyed, as happened in 1974, we should start to withdraw from Northern Ireland.
  In 1974, those who decided to destroy power sharing had nothing to fear. If they had been told beforehand that if power sharing was destroyed Britain would find other ways of ending its involvement in Northern Ireland, perhaps without the consent of the majority towards reunification, there might have been a greater reluctance to destroy power sharing. However, in 1974 the elements of the majority community who were determined to undermine what Parliament had agreed to had nothing to fear.
  I shall draw an analogy with what happened in 1965 with Rhodesia and UDI. It was said at that time "You must not declare UDI. You would be naughty boys if you did that, but if you do so we shall not do anything about it". Surprise, surprise!—UDI was declared.
  It is necessary to make it clear that any attempt to undo the work of Parliament would mean that an entirely different situation would emerge in which Britain's withdrawal would be carried out in a way that is very different from the way we would wish.
  I remind the House of the words of the late Richard Crossman in a debate in 1972 which was the first debate here on direct rule. If I may say so without being patronising, Richard Crossman had a good understanding of a political situation. He said:

  1073
  "The biggest weapon that we have in Britain to persuade the Irish to come to terms is the threat of our withdrawal. No other threat will impress them. The great danger will be that they do not believe it".
  He was perfectly right.
  There is a growing impatience among British people about what is happening in Northern Ireland. There is a feeling that we are at a dead end, and that we continue in the same situation year after year, with more terrorism, hunger strikes, and international embarrassment for Britain with demonstrations against us in America, France, and various other countries. The British people see no end to it. That is why we must find an acceptable solution.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was right in one respect. In a fine speech he said that there was a need to open up the debate on Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that his solution is the correct one, because, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, there is no consent or agreement among either the majority or the minority communities for an independent Ulster. So it would start with total hostility from both sides.
  Moreover, the inevitable question would be asked: if there is an independent Ulster, who would safegaurd the minority community? Would the IRA say "This is an independent Ulster, with nothing to do with Britain. We shall withdraw and go to the Republic or emigrate, perhaps to America?" Nothing of the kind. Indeed, I would go so far as to say, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend, who of course is a very distinguished politician, that his solution would be 1920 and worse. So 1 am not in favour of what he said.
  Mr. Dempsey: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) argued that there was a case for an independent Ulster. My hon. Friend says, in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that there is no evidence of that. There is evidence in a referendum that the people who live in the Six Counties by two to one wish to remain within the United Kingdom. Would it not be worth while having another referendum in due course to see whether the people of the Six Counties wished to have an independent State?
  Mr. Winnick: That is a possibility. Greater experts on Ulster than I could deal with that question, and I imagine that such people would come to the view that any referendum would show that there was no majority. Nevertheless, I do not in principle oppose a referendum as such.
  It is nine years since direct rule started, and it is 12 years since troops went in. Inevitably the question must be asked: how much longer will we try to deal with the crisis in Northern Ireland? In four, five, nine, or 12 years' time, will we still be debating the subject in a continuing crisis in the Province, with more hunger strikers, more British soldiers shot, and all the rest of it? We as a country have resolved many colonial problems since 1945. Of course, Northern Ireland is a different and far more complex problem, but it is no good following a path that means the continuation of a dead-end situation which has cost us so much in money, blood and reputation.
  We must recognise the need for a completely different approach—power sharing. If that fails, we must seek to reach agreement with Dublin on reunification. However
  1074
  much one wishes to respect the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland, it may not be possible to find a solution that is acceptable to that majority. If we were to reach agreement in a different situation with Dublin and that agreement were put to the British people in a referendum, I am sure that they would give majority support to any British Government that could resolve the Northern Ireland crisis, if necessary on the basis of reunification and without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster.
  7.58 pm
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: These annual debates each July should not be simply re-runs of previous debates. They should take account of changes that take place each year.
  A number of significant changes have taken place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has opened a dialogue with Dublin, on which she is to be congratulated. I believe that that will be seen as one of the more significant events in the lifetime of this Parliament. Men have committed suicide in the Maze, and are continuing to do so. Political initiatives in the Province in the past 12 months have withered because of insufficient political will to advance. We have taken a propaganda pounding throughout the world. Bipartisan policy appears to be crumbling. A commitment to a united Ireland will have just as far-reaching consequences as the hare-brained scheme of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to replace British troops with foreign troops.
  The economy has worsened with attendant increased social tensions. During the past 12 months we have discovered two things about the Northern Ireland economy. The first is that it was not competitive, and the other is that it has suffered because of the violence and the threat of violence in the Province. Lastly, there has been an increased disenchantment with the Province by the people in the rest of Great Britain.
  Some things have not changed. The Province is still part of the United Kingdom and will remain so while that is the wish of the majority. No prisoner has been granted political status, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his courage and determination to withstand the pressures that have been placed on him in a singularly unique way during the past 12 months. We still have security problems in the Province. I should like to be associated with those hon. Members who have paid their thanks to the security forces for the way in which they have carried out their activities.
  The communities in the Province are still polarised. In part, this is the effect of intermittent irresponsibility by representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland. I suggest, however, that it is also in part due to the fact that not enough countervailing pressure has been applied by this House. Because of the events of the last 12 months, the Government are under increased pressure to determine firm and positive political guidelines for the future. To do that, we have to start with a political paradox that was first given prominence by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
  The right hon. Gentleman, during his premiership, propounded two ideas, both of which sounded attractive but which were, in a sense, mutually contradictory. On the one hand, he kept telling the country that Ulster politicians and the Ulster people must solve their own constitutional problems. On the other hand, he kept telling us that this House must govern and take the ultimate decisions. I

  1075
  would submit that this paradox is still at the centre of the difficulty that we, as a House, face in terms of our relationship with Northern Ireland. It has never been resolved.
  The first option—that Ulster politicians must solve their own constitutional problems—is not an idea that we employ in any other part of the United Kingdom. Further, it assumes that there will be a basis of agreement for future action.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second proposition does not assume that there will be agreement. It assumes that there will be acquiescence on the part of the Province to any future action. No agreement between the political parties in Northern Ireland is possible, I would submit, almost by definition. Different political parties have got different ends. It is not realistic to sit them around a table and expect them to reach agreement. Each party will hold out in any negotiation in the hope that something more favourable will eventually be offered to it. Acquiescence, however, is a possibility, but acquiescence requires a degree of political will on the part of this House.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) I did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's solution, largely for the reasons that the hon. Member for Walsall, North enunciated. However, the right hon. Gentleman did say at least two things that needed to be stated in the House. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that it is the job of this House to set the framework and the responsibility of the people in the Province to work out an accommodation within that framework. I believe that this is a fundamental truth with which the House must come to terms.
  The people of Northern Ireland, I believe, will acquiesce if they are told the framework within which they have to work. It is the constitutional responsibility of this House to set that framework. To have the necessary degree of political will involves understanding what the people of Ulster want or are willing to accept. It involves continuing and increased consultation in the Province and resisting sectarian pressure from whatever quarter. It also involves shaking off the apathy that afflicts this House on Northern Ireland matters and consequently legislating and governing in the true sense of those words. The House cannot expect progress while so many here and outside do not understand the issues in Northern Ireland. We despair, but we do not seek to educate with equal fervour.
  What is the framework for governing? The second element of the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that I found helpful was his statement—I believe this needed to be said—that direct rule, it is now clear, offers no permanent solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I pose to the House two simple questions. Does anyone really believe that 1 million Protestants in Northern Ireland will give long-term allegiance to a Government that is based in Dublin? The second question is similar. Does anyone really believe that 500,000 Catholics in Northern Ireland will give long-term allegiance to a Government that is based in London? I believe that the answer to both questions is "No". If the answer is "No", we are left only with the possibility of seeking devolution of power to an assembly in Northern Ireland that would safeguard the rights of both
  1076
  communities and with which they could ultimately identify. That assembly should eventually determine its own relationship with London and with Dublin.
  Reference has been made to the poll that appeared in The Sunday Times. Six options on the future government of the Province were presented. Only one of the six commanded majority support in both communities. This was that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom but with its own assembly and guarantees for Catholics. Seventy per cent. of the Protestants and 62 per cent. of the Catholics indicated acceptance of that proposition. The question arises of the form that it should take.
  I welcome the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today as a first step. I welcome it primarily as a recognition that the answer to the two fundamental questions that I posed is "No" and that the only hope for a stable, constructive legislative future for Northern Ireland is in an assembly devolved to the Province. On that ground, I welcome the initiative. I have, however, to say to my right hon. Friend, as I am sure he understands, that, particularly in the Ulster context, a body without responsibility will almost certainly act irresponsibly. At the end of the day, we shall be looking for—I hope that his mind moves along similar channels—a body that ultimately will be elected and to which power can be devolved.
  My right hon. Friend knows that I have made proposals to him and to the House previously. I welcome his initiative today as a first step in that direction. A fundamental commitment to a policy of devolution with its political consequences needs to be made by the Government. Only a clear policy decisively followed will stem the disenchantment in the rest of Great Britain. People in Great Britain badly need to be able to believe in a policy that will have some discernible and acceptable end. Otherwise, the political will of the people will continue to erode until they demand action from this House, not because it is virtuous but because it will bring selfish relief.
  If the Government are to succeed with their policy of devolution they need to bolster the policy in three ways. The first is in security. When we talk in this House about security, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells us about the improved security on the border between the security forces in the North and the South. We welcome that. It is an improvement that has taken place in the past year. But my right hon. Friend must also accept that border security is not the only aspect of security which is a worry to the House. It is equally a worry that the South is a safe haven for people who commit dastardly deeds in the North and then seem to be able to escape with impunity.
  I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that this state of affairs is an affront to the Protestant community and is regarded, fairly or unfairly, as a sign of Government weakness. I hope that he will make this a matter of early discussion with the new Taoiseach, because we find ourselves in a difficult position. The Sunningdale initiatives failed because it was obvious what was in it for the Catholics, but there was nothing in it for the Protestants. We are in danger of getting ourselves into the same position with the Dublin talks. There seems to be something in them for the Catholics, but there is no security component for the Protestants.
  The people in Dublin tell us repeatedly that to have extradition they would have to change their constitution,

  1077
  and they are not willing to do that. My right hon. Friend knows that there is a second way—to seek a change in the Judges' Rules in the Republic. The Irish Government's statement on establishing the special criminal court on 26 May 1972 reads in part:
  "While the Special Criminal Court is authorised to make rules governing its own practice and procedure, the ordinary rules of evidence apply in proceedings before it. Specifically, the rules of evidence applicable are the same as those applicable in trials in the Central Criminal Court".
  It is open to the Attorney-General in the South to institute a change in the Judges' Rules to make it possible for those who have committed atrocities, crime and violence in the North to be returned to the North. I believe that the new Taoiseach will understand the concern of Ulster Unionists in this regard perhaps better than his predecessor.
  The second way in which my right hon. Friend should bolster his move on devolution is in terms of Northern Ireland politics. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said about his activities as a Minister. Ministers must involve themselves in the politics of the Province. They involve themselves in activities in other parts of the United Kingdom, so why should be they not do so in the Province too? If the Government's case is to be made, we must develop closer contact with the people—not just ministerial contact, which I know is close, but political contact. Only in that way can we explain, repeatedly, the long-term policy of the Government to the people, and thus increase its chances of acceptance. This House needs to listen more to the authentic voice of Ulster common sense, and less to the equally authentic voice of Ulster rhetoric.
  I say to my right hon. Friend "Do not be afraid to challenge politically Ulster Members of Parliament when they act irresponsibly. You will have the support of all your right hon. and hon. Friends when you do so, and, I suspect, the support of many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches". If people are to play politics with the future of Northern Ireland, this House and the Government have a responsibility to combat that in the political arena, not just by issuing statements but with the same fervour as we apply to others with whom we disagree. Ulster Members of Parliament are only Members of Parliament, as I and other Members of this House are, and they need to be treated as much.
  The third area to which we need to continue to give concerned interest to bolster the policy of devolution is propaganda. Propaganda is the handmaiden of politics. Despite the favourable editorials in newspapers, we are losing the propaganda battle. One of the reasons is that it is not being conducted by Members of this House. Officials from the Department are useful, clergymen are useful, but ultimately propaganda is politics, and politics is what this House is about.
  My right hon. Friend was kind and generous to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and me when we led the first expedition to the United States in December to talk about Government policy. Other hon. Members have followed us. If those visits were as helpful as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said they were, they should be repeated. There should be more of them, for we, and we alone, can talk with the authority and the political
  1078
  decisiveness that are necessary to combat the adverse propaganda to which we are being exposed, particularly in the United States and Europe.
  There is no question but that we are losing the battle of propaganda on the hunger strike. I reaffirm my support for the Government's stand—no political status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right. He must not give way in any circumstances. I found his statement on 30 June most helpful. It was a clear statement of Government policy, except for one sentence. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State sums up he will be able to clarify it for us. My right hon. Friend said, on the last page of the statement:
  "It has been suggested that changes should be made now in the areas of work, clothing and association as a gesture in We hope of ending the hunger strike. The Government does listen to the views of responsible people. The great difficulty about such a move is that it would encourage the hope that political status based on the so-called 'five demands' could still be achieved."
  What bothered me about that last sentence was that it seemed to imply that the great difficuly about moving was that the move might be misunderstood. The line must be drawn where maximum humanitarianism and the principle of no political status coincide. There we should take our stand, and we should not be moved.
  If the present prison conditions represent that relationship, they cannot and must not be changed during or after a hunger strike. But if they do not represent that relationship, they should be changed to make them the irreducible minimum that it is the equivalent of no political status. In either event, the House will support my right hon. Friend when he says "No political status, now or ever."
  We shall of course support the Government tonight, but if in 12 months the lists with which I began—the lists of things that have changed and things that have not changed—are unaltered, the consequence for our nation and Northern Ireland in particular will be even more serious.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The background to the debate is different from that which existed last year. Last July the terrorists were continuing their programme of genocide and the murder of law-abiding citizens, particularly along the frontier of the United Kingdom. The murderers' plan to move back that frontier continues. However, it has had little effect on the courage and tenacity of those stalwart citizens who go about their duties—I do not say without fear but with determination to withstand the assaults of the cowards who fear even their own helpless victims.
  The master thugs had to acknowledge that their murder and bombing was getting them no nearer their objectives. They had to dream up another phase that would attract the fellow-travellers who have always been poised and ready to come to the rescue when the killers are in a tight corner. That led to hunger strike mark 1 at Christmas. That was badly bungled. It went wrong. Mark 2 reached its climax at about Easter and was more successful. Now we are being treated to hunger strike mark 3.
  Responsible people in all parts of the British Isles and in all parts of the world, particularly in areas that have been afflicted by ruthless terror, are looking to Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. So far they have not looked in vain. They have looked to this Parliament—and again they have not looked in vain—for

  1079
  a firm stand and a refusal to elevate convicted terrorists to a position of superiority over all other criminals. That is what it is all about.
  On the political side there has also been a change since last year. On 9 July we combined the renewal of the interim period extension order with a debate on the White Paper proposals for further discussion. Some hon. Members trumpeted about the likelihood of securing the restoration of a devolved Government before the end of 1980. Do they now stop to reflect on what would have been the fate of any such restructuring had it been in existence in April or May this year at the time of the hunger strike crisis?
  How could the Republican element in that power-sharing structure play a continuing role when the SDLP, for example, had to chicken-out of a parliamentary by-election? If the power sharers had plodded on, would not they have been hammered by their electorates and suffered the fate suffered by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) chided gently those of us who expressed a little merriment when the Secretary of State announced his advisory council. Perhaps in a moment of quiet reflection the hon. Member should ask whether his instinct as a good parliamentarian would lead him to believe that such an advisory council would be a useful device in any circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North talked about power sharing. I cannot remember any active disobedience by the Loyalist community during the existence of the power-sharing Executive, although it did not exist for long.
  The power-sharing Executive failed for two reasons. First, we know from the memoirs of those who participated that it would have been only a matter of time before it was blown apart by its internal dissensions. Dissension and split were avoided by the simple device of avoiding anything remotely constructive or divisive. The Executive could not have gone on year after year without taking decision of some significance about the future of Northern Ireland.
  Perhaps the most important reason why it failed was that it was rejected constitutionally by the Northern Ireland electorate, which voted in a British general election to return to the House of Commons 11 out of 12 Members of Parliament pledged in their opposition to the power-sharing Executive and to the proposed council of Ireland.
  Some hon Members will say that it is alleged that the Executive was brought down by the strike. I say to those who bore some responsibility at that time that if they had not refused to acknowledge the verdict of that general election result the strike would have been unnecessary and would not have happened.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that the Labour Party's objective was to win the hearts of the Northern Ireland people. The House will be prepared to take it from me that the Labour Party won that battle long ago. The right hon. Member for Mansfield played a leading part in that, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) who was, perhaps, one of the most successful occupants of Stormont castle since 1972. We must not forget the right hon. Member for
  1080
  Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am almost tempted to call him my right hon. Friend, because we have enjoyed a close friendship on personal terms if not in political terms, for many years. As the head and Prime Minister of the Labour Government he did a great deal to convince the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly the self-styled, so-called working-class people. that the British Labour Party had their interests at heart.
  I cannot believe that the Labour Party now intends to turn its back on all that it achieved. I do not believe that it has embarked on a reciprocal course. That would mean—if we carry the words of the right hon. Member for Mansfield to their logical conclusion—that the Labour Party would have to reverse its course and set about repelling the self-styled working-class people in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Labour Party will not do that.
  Some members of the Labour Party have taken a less subtle line. They have adopted a typical Irish attitude. They are saying "We would like you to leave us. If you do not agree to leave us, we shall make you agree."
  The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag by accident, because at first he said that "other matters" would be considered by this weird committee or council. Until then we did not understand that he had it in mind to add to the responsibilities and tasks of that council the products of the study groups.
  I have been at a loss to understand what the new Prime Minister of the Republic meant when he came to power and talked about involving what he called the political representatives of Northern Ireland. Now we know. The vehicle is to be labelled the Northern Ireland Council but in reality it is the Council of Ireland mark 2 Sunningdale. We now know the reason for the paving operation of the past two weeks throughout Northern Ireland. It was ludicrous and amusing to see all these little men popping up all over the place complete with their briefs and scripts—which many of them read badly—gleefully announcing that the Northern Ireland Office was at it again. I admit that the Northern Ireland Office manipulation was more skilful this time.
  Last Monday evening the Secretary of State and I attended a social function in Belfast city hall. I was given a preview—not, I hasten to add, by the Secretary of State but by a spokesman of a party with which I have considerable sympathy. However, that party managed to secure the return of only two councillors in the whole of Northern Ireland in the May elections for local government. That gentleman informed me that he had been invited to another jamboree—as he put it—at Stormont. He said "This time we are all going".
  One could think of many other examples of that sort of thing that have been tripped out over the past two weeks. This time the tactics were different. They brought over the small fry first. The attraction was no doubt that they would be kept in business and new life would be breathed into them, for some were sadly in need of a further injection and transfusion.
  This morning The Times told us that our invitations were on the way. The Secretary of State confirmed that, but we can blame the Post Office for their non-arrival. Never mind; better late than never.
  Every hon. Member has a right to ask why the Secretary of State has arrived at this extraordinary decision. He may have been reading that brief supplied to a former occupant of his office who told me that my suggestion of starting modestly and giving real powers to local government as

  1081
  a start was sensible. He said "Jim, that is a sensible and practical idea. but the weakness is that you can't find any excuse for paying the blighters".
  The Secretary of State advanced another curious argument, that there was a need—I hope that I quoted his words correctly—"to re-engage the people of Northern Ireland in politics." I do not know what that means, because I always have the impression, going from this big island to the northern part of that smaller island, that politicians are thicker on the ground in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole than they are in any other part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] "Thicker" in many senses—certainly more numerous, though some have fallen by the wayside and some are not with us any more. The Secretary of State confessed that it was not possible to confer executive or legislative powers on an elected body. It was not possible to confer responsibility, but it was, apparently, possible to confer and encourage irresponsibility. That is the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) because that is a corollary to denying responsibility. They will be irresponsible if they are denied responsibility. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also made a valid point. He said that they would be held responsible—that is a different thing and they will know that to their cost—because people would say "Never mind that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Never mind the Prime Minister and her monetary policy. We elected you directly or indirectly and you are there to look after our interests. You are failing in your duty". The hon. Member is correct.
  On a higher constitutional level, there is what is termed the right to warn and advise. At our much more lowly level we have a duty to do that. We have a duty to warn but not to threaten, and a duty to advise but not obstruct.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, with typical modesty, admitted that he might be slightly out of touch. I shall not comment in detail on his serious suggestions and proposals. Many of them were novel and, as he admitted, untried. Sitting in my position behind him, I gained the impression that some of his hon. Friends probably felt that he was advocating the restoration of Stormont with all the constraints removed. I do not think that that was his intention, hut at the same time in the not-too-distant future he may want to correct that impression, much as I should like to see him holding to that view.
  I hope that I shall match the right hon. Gentleman in his modesty when I say that Ulster Unionists do not ask and have never asked for special category status politically. We do not refuse to work with people who hold views different from ours. There is no unwillingness on our part to co-operate with others in areas where cooperation is possible. There is no more friction in our district councils than there is at present in the Greater London Council. In the district councils in Northern Ireland the conflict is two-way but in the Greater London Council the conflict is triangular. I shall not harrow feelings by going into that too deeply.
  Ulster Members of Parliament, whatever their views, represent their constituents, whatever their views. They do their duty as impartially as their colleagues representing other parts of the United Kingdom. If we all seek progress, which has been the theme of the debate—it has not depressed me in any way—it can be made in two contexts, namely, at local government level and at parliamentary level, with all that that means to an elected representative.
  1082
  The Secretary of State said that in his 1979–80 conference it was not possible to find the level of agreement necessary for the instalment of a legislative and executive structure. That may be his conclusion, but we wish that it had been otherwise. I cannot see the reason for people saying "If you and I had attended the conference, somehow or another agreement would have been reached". It is not sensible to suggest that introducing a third or fourth element makes it more probable that a conclusion will be reached.
  Northern Ireland's greatest overpowering need is stability, in both the political and the security senses. The second great need is a gradual coming together and working together. That is not impossible. The advice that I shall tender to the Secretary of State, if he asks for it during the coming weeks, is that he should exercise the patience to which he referred earlier. We all accept that he possesses a great deal of patience. He should exercise it and begin to build, brick by brick, on solid foundations that will endure.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. W. Benyon: We have heard a great deal today about the step-by-step approach. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) used those words, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The long and tortured history of Ireland shows all too clearly that the step-by-step approach does not work. Any such move is always pre-empted by Irish politicians. We have heard some of the reactions. Whatever one thought about what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said in his remarkable speech, whatever one thought of his solution, he would not be surprised by the reactions to his speech. They were predictable reactions. The step-by-step approach, which is so beloved on this side of the Irish Channel, is always pre-empted elsewhere and becomes one step forwards and two steps backwards.
  I am prepared to reserve my opinion about the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a consultative council. I confess that it has a faint musty whiff of the old colonial days of the Governors Council, which was always a facade behind which nationalism boiled and bubbled happily. I do not believe that that is the way we should go.
  There are only two choices facing the Government. One is to continue with direct rule which, whatever its variants, means continued government from Westminster and a progressive harmonisation of law and administration with other parts of the United Kingdom. The second involves a much more radical approach, which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). That must involve the protection of the minority in some form or another. Whatever choice is adopted, it is essential that a firm decision is made soon, and adhered to, because the current uncertainty in the Province is all too dangerous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that there should be no change and that there is no need to consider any alternative. I used to favour that view but I have changed my mind strongly during the past 12 months. I have done so just because of the parlous economic state of the Province. That is getting worse and worse. Gone are the days when those resident in Ulster could look with contempt over the border and see a much more backward and impoverished South. The roles are reversed and I think that the gap will become wider.

  1083
  Secondly, the accession of the United Kingdom and the Republic to the European Economic Community has produced a new dimension and a new opportunity. Increasingly in the European Parliament Irish matters are being discussed. They are being discussed mostly in a negative way but these discussions could be turned to the advantage of all communities in Ireland in future.
  Thirdly, I see no evidence that the polarisation of the communities will lessen; rather the reverse. It is obvious that the majority of the minority community cannot identify with the present Government of the Province and as long as that continues the terrorist base remains. Likewise, the Protestant community, fearful and disillusioned as it is, is turning more and more to extreme politicians. The recent local elections and the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election prove that only too well.
  Finally, there is no doubt that the present situation in Ulster is damaging to the United Kingdom's position abroad. Infuriating and unfair though it is, it is no good saying that the information on which America, France and other countries are basing their opinions is wrong. The fact is that we have taken a pounding overseas over the past few months. I am prepared to put up with that if I can see that there will be discernible progress in future, but I do not see that occurring.
  It may be shorthand to say that the minority community wishes to be governed from Dublin and the majority community from Westminster, but it is true. Dublin has made it clear that it sees no progress being made through the coercion of the majority. The remarks that have been made from the Opposition Benches and from my hon. Friends have supported that view.
  Dublin could not view with equanimity the prospect of 1 million disillusioned and discontented subjects within its boundaries. The most radical solution to come out of Dublin has been some form of federalism. Likewise the Protestant majority says that we have given a commitment that there will be no change in the constitution without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster.
  The results of a recent poll that appeared in The Sunday Times revealed that the majority appears to realise now that change there must be and that such change must involve some form of powersharing or partnership with the minority community. The Sunday Times poll and the other soundings of opinion suggest that while the majority is happy with the status quo, there is a sizeable proportion of the minority that cannot identify with the present Government of the Province.
  The key question, which seems to have been missed in the debate, is how we create a Government in the Province with which both sides of the divide can identify. I am told—I do not know whether this is true—that the minority community would accept a devolved Government provided that the safeguards for their interests were sufficient. I do not believe that those safeguards can come from a British Government. I do not see why we should not consider the suggestion that the Republic of Ireland could be brought in as a guarantor of the position of the minority in a new constitution. In other words, the action of that devolved Administration, whether of legislation or administration, would be subject to the veto of one or other of the sovereign Powers in these islands.
  I am speaking in general terms and I am unable to develop my argument in the short time that is available to
  1084
  me. Obviously, detailed proposals will be necessary for sensitive areas such as housing. In the past such an idea has always been treated contemptuously. It has been described as a constitutional monstrosity and in a sense it is. However, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, we are in a unique situation and unique remedies are required.
  For 60 years the majority community in Northern Ireland has had it in its gift to offer the partnership that I am describing to the minority, but it has not done so. When some of their leaders, such as Lord O'Neill, have tried to do so, they were rejected. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will seriously consider going not step by step but in a much more radical way to see whether we can break the deadlock that has been with us for far too long.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Time and necessity restrict me in my remarks. It should be put on record that this is a unique debate. There has been a unique development in the shape of the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
  The reception given to the Secretary of State's proposals by the Unionist speakers for Northern Ireland showed no optimism. They have rejected out of hand any proposition to set up a council in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South, (Mr. Bradford) said that they did so on the ground that Ulster should be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. Ulster is unlike any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: So is Wales.
  Mr. Fitt: The difference between Wales, Ulster and Northern Ireland is that since 1922—next year will be the sixtieth anniversary—Northern Ireland has been governed to a large extent by the special powers legislation, for 50 years under Unionism and for 10 years under the aegis of this House. Neither Wales nor Scotland has had special powers legislation. In the essential field of law and order without which no Government can claim to be running a country in the interests of all those people, they had to resort to the special powers legislation. A Government which had to do that and a country which had to be governed by such legislation are unique not only within the confines of the United Kingdom but on this side of the Iron Curtain in Western Europe. That is why the debate is unique.
  We are debating two pieces of emergency legislation—the emergency legislation in connection with the special powers legislation which is 60 years old and the emergency legislation in regard to the constitution of Northern Ireland, which was made in 1974. I have opposed on all occasions and will oppose tonight the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, particularly in view of the Government's rejection of the reasonable requests which has been made for a review of the Act.
  It is recognised that this Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are draconian legislation. That is agreed and everyone accepts it. It is of the utmost necessity that we keep reviewing such legislation at every opportunity to make sure that its draconian aspects are not kept in being for one second longer than is necessary. Even at this stage, the Government should not take the rigid attitudes which they have taken and say that they will not set up a review.

  1085
  This legislation, particularly in relation to the prisons in Northern Ireland and the Government's attitude to the hunger strikers, is not Conservative Government policy. That policy was advocated by Lord Gardiner and the special category status was abolished by the former Home Secretary. Therefore, there is much unanimity in this case.
  I do not like the Diplock courts. I do not like no-jury courts. I do not like that type of legislation. One thing which I shall say in favour of the Diplock courts is that, unlike the IRA courts, they have not yet sentenced anyone to death. Did those courts have a jury or a judge? What evidence was given for the defence or the prosecution? Only last week one of my constituents was shot through the head and his body was dumped in a refuse chute in the Divis flats in Belfast. Was there a court, was there a jury, and what was the defence and prosecution? At least the Diplock courts have not done that. What charge was levelled at the innocent girl taking the census in Derry? Who tried her? Why was she sentenced to death? Whatever may be said about the Diplock courts, the IRA courts are far more brutal. That should always be borne in mind.
  Within a fortnight, another striker could die. The hunger strike has had a devasting impact on the whole community in Northern Ireland. Never have I seen such polarisation and alienation. The Secretary of State has a duty to comment. The IRA issued a statement yesterday, the Provisional Sinn Fein the day before and one of its supporters the day before that alleging that the hunger strikers were putting tremendous pressure on the Government to accede to their demands for political status.
  The Irish Americans appear to support the IRA demands, anti it is interesting to note that Communist Russia does, too. The IRA is unique in being the first such organisation to have the unswerving support of the Kremlin and Irish Americans.
  Various countries are allegedly applying pressure on the British Government to accede to the prisoners' demands for political status. France, Italy, Holland, Germany and most other European countries have experienced terrorism. I do not know what the people in those countries feel or what demonstrations there may have been, but has the Secretary of State had representations from the Governments of France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and Holland to concede political status for the prisoners? If he had, the violent organisations in those countries would also be able to demand political status. The sooner that it is stated in clear and unmistakable terms that there is no pressure, from elected Governments, even though there may be from, say, Irish Americans, the sooner will the people in Sinn Fein realise that the pressure that they hope for will not be forthcoming, and in the interests of sanity, humanity and compassion they will call the young men dying in the Maze off the hunger strike.
  Those young men and their relatives must be suffering agonies untold, which we cannot understand. The organisations are using those young men as weapons, just as they use machine guns and Armalite rifles. They should not be allowed, asked or forced to die in the interests of people outside the prison. The Government should say in clear and unmistakable language that, if the IRA and its supporters persist, another four or five young men will die and nothing will be achieved apart from untold heartbreak for their relatives.
  1086
  I fully support the recent statement of the Irish Catholic bishops. It was clear, unqualified and unambiguous. It is the clearest Church statement since His Holiness the Pope visited Ireland and Drogheda. The previous statements by the Catholic Church in Ireland were qualified and ambiguous. They were welcomed with open arms by the Provisional Sinn Fein and its supporters and rejected by me. I and others welcomed the recent statement, but it was rejected out of hand by the Provisional Sinn Fein. Words are potent in Northern Ireland and mean what they say, so the greatest credit must be given to the bishops for their unambiguous statement.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East will not take it amiss if I remind him of a speech that I made from the Benches opposite on 28 March 1979, when I could not go into the Lobby with the Government under his leadership because of my objections to their policy in Northern Ireland. I said then—and this can be found in Hansard—that the Labour Party in Opposition seems to be more realistic in its attitude to Ireland than are Labour Governments. It is not so long since the Labour Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, were going out of their way to create more seats and to pander to Unionist Members. There is a great deal of cynicism among the minority in Northern Ireland because they see the Labour Party in Opposition as a different kettle of fish from a Labour Government in power. That will never be forgotten. A great deal of the present atmosphere and attitude among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland—people who are now engaging in marches and some kind of overt support for the IRA—has been conditioned by what they regarded as the Labour Party selling them out in favour of Unionism in 1978–79.
  My right hon. Friend called for what he described as a broadly independent Ulster. I do not believe that that is possible. I appreciate that his motivation in suggesting it was brought about by frustration and fear for the future of Northern Ireland. We are all frightened when we look into the future—because we see no future. As one who lives in Belfast and will shortly be returning there, I must tell my right hon. Friend that in no circumstances will the Catholic population accept an independent Ulster, no matter how many Bills of Rights are put on to the statute book, for who would police the Bills of Rights? We would need the Army and the police. We have had the bitter experience of 52 years of Unionism. We know what the Unionists did when they had control of the judiciary and the police. There is absolutely no possibility that the Catholic population would in any way accept an independent Ulster.
  The Sunday Times recently carried out a survey and reported quite clearly that a majority of the population would accept power sharing. I am the only Member of the House who was involved in the Sunningdale agreement. I say this for the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He did everything that he possibly could to try to bring about a new atmosphere in Northern Ireland, which was the only real hope for political progress that I have seen in my lifetime there. Unfortunately, it lasted only five months. It never had the chance to engage the confidence of the whole community. It was brought to an end by a combination of Unionist opposition and strikes and a continuation of the IRA bombing campaign. I must also say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, although he was not the Prime Minister then, that many people in

  1087
  Northern Ireland believe that if the forces under the command of the British Government—it was a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government—had acted more swiftly at that time, Sunningdale would have been in existence still. That cannot be said with any degree of accuracy, but many people believe it.
  I believe that Sunningdale was the most hopeful development and that we must get back to that by some means or other. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made a very constructive speech. He said that power sharing is the only answer to the problems of Northern Ireland in any immediate sense. If the Unionist Party persists in rejecting it, the House has the right under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 to take other measures.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that there was overwhelming rejection of Sunningdale by the electorate in February 1974. It was not all that overwhelming. The Unionists won 11 seats for 51 per cent. of the votes while the pro-Sunningdale candidate—myself—had one seat for 49 per cent. of the votes. The Unionist Party in Northern Ireland has never had less than nine out of the 12 seats. They have had 10, 11 and even 12 seats when people decided to show their opinion by abstaining. It may have been an overwhelming victory in the number of seats, but in the previous election the Unionists won 10 seats and there was no Sunningdale agreement to argue about then. In the election before that, the Unionist Party won 10 seats. Therefore, the 1974 election did not represent a great revulsion against Sunningdale.
  An opportunity now faces the Government. I fully accept that they should set up the new council. The matter will have to be discussed in greater detail to see what it actually means, but the members of that council should be appointed.
  If there were an election to any Northern Ireland Assembly, the major political parties would go to the electorate with different mandates. One would seek a unified Ireland, the other an integrated Ulster with Great Britain and the party led by the hon. member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would return to majority rule at Stormont. If the council were to be elected on those three conflicting mandates, how in the name of God could we expect it to reach agreement? There would be none. That is why members of the council must be appointed.
  Even then, it will take men of courage to accept the appointments, because they will be regarded as traitors to whatever side they belong. If they accept the appointments, and given a period of three months, six months or a year, I believe that they will begin to have confidence in each other and that they will be able to do away with the suspicion that now exists. It may then be possible to hold elections, but not elections to an Assembly at Stormount.
  I have known the new Taoiseach, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, for a number of years. He has a feeling for the people of Northern Ireland. His relations come from Northern Ireland. In fact his immediate relations were not of my religion. That gives him something which other Taoiseachs did not possess—immediate access to the thinking, fears and suspicions that exist within the majority community.
  1088
  There is now an opportunity for the Government to make progress. However, any talks that take place with the new Taoiseach must be more open than the previous talks. Such an air of mystery and secrecy surrounded the previous talks that many people in Northern Ireland felt that a deal had been done and that they had been sold out. It is of the utmost importance that such talks continue with urgency and good will. I know that the new Taoiseach will enter such talks with the hope that they will succeed in the interests of everyone in Ireland.
  Not only should future talks be more open: they should be capable of discussion in this House, because it was the secrecy of the previous talks that led to the victory, both personal and political, of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: This has been a wide-ranging and constructive debate. The depth of concern that has been expressed in every corner of the House shows that Northern Ireland has once more become the focus of intense political attention and concern.
  When I consider the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, as well as those who have sought to catch the eye of the Chair, I cherish the hope that such interest will permeate other Northern Ireland debates. In our view, if direct rule is to exist it is essential that it should be seen to operate in an open manner. In addition, the legislation affecting the Province should be debated as widely as possible.
  We tend to debate Northern Ireland late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. However, I cherish the hope that more hon. Members, with their interest in Northern Ireland well established as the result of this debate, will in future debate Northern Ireland's real problems with the rest of us.
  I do not intend to cover the same ground as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Many of his points have been echoed in other parts of the House. I shall deal with some of the questions raised in the debate. In particular, I shall reinforce my right hon. Friend's main argument for an independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
  First, I shall refer to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Of course, we welcome his ideas in the continuing debate on Northern Ireland. Few of us could doubt that he made a major contribution. I hope that he will not be too surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend and I do not go all the way with him. We certainly agree with his interpretation of bipartisanship. Far more status has been given to it than it deserves, because there have always been fundamental differences of approach between the parties on Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East did less than justice to the achievements of his Administration in creating a climate for a just settlement in Northern Ireland. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who paid a glowing tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Ministers. As for the question of independence for Northern Ireland, I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the Labour Party study group looked long and hard at that option, along with others, but concluded that it would be the least satisfactory of all the available options. Indeed, that point was taken

  1089
  up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The Mori poll in last week's edition of The Sunday Times gave some credibility to that view. It showed that almost 80 per cent. of those questioned in Northern Ireland—certainly far and away the majority of both sides of the community—suggested that that was a non-starter.
  I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. He has a record second to none in both Government and Opposition for his work on Northern Ireland. During the past few months both he and his family have been subject to unwarranted criticism and harassment. All I can say of his critics is that their knowledge of Northern Ireland is as scanty as their behaviour is intolerable.
  The debate has covered two main issues. It has covered the extension of direct rule for 12 months and the continuance for a further six months of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. This is the eighth summer that hon. Members have been asked to renew two unique and controversial pieces of legislation. All hon. Members will agree that never before has this joint renewal debate taken place in such a climate of political ferment and public interest.
  The Opposition do not agree lightly to extend the direct rule extension order. We see it now—as we have done in the past—as an interim measure and as a necessary prerequisite to any lasting solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. It can never be the answer to the problem of conflicting nationalities that has rent the Province apart since its creation in 1921. The violence and terrorism in the last 12 months in particular have left a legacy of misery and distrust that will take many years to dispel.
  When direct rule was frist introduced it was thought by many hon. Members—albeit optimistically—that some settlement could be worked out between the communities, with Westminster acting as some sort of arbiter between the parties. That optimism has proved naive. No one can accuse past Governments of not having tried to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland. However, those efforts have always been strangled, one way or another, by the intolerance of the Province's politicians who have been unwilling to compromise or to shift away from the shibboleths and dogmas that have regrettably always held such sway in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the results of the recent local government elections in Northern Ireland lead me to the conclusion that political affiliations there are as polarised as ever. We seem to have come full circle since 1972.
  The time is ripe to cast aside smart-sounding dogma and categorical solutions, which we hear so much from the impatient or the revolutionary or, as has already been said, from the "Johnnies-come-lately"—those people who have given five minutes' thought to the problems of Northern Ireland and who get so much prominence in the Press.
  Dr. Maw hinney: How does the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) reconcile the apparent polarisation in the local elections to which he has just referred with The Sunday Times poll, which talked about majorities in both communities being in favour of an Assembly with guarantees for the Catholics? They seemed to be mutually exclusive.
  Mr. Pendry: I used that poll because it has been used so many times in the debate. I always have some reserve
  1090
  about polls. As I have been reminded, when powersharing collapsed, within a few days 75 per cent. of the Province voted for powersharing. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was giving that illustration only as a rough indicator. On 8 June the Mori poll showed that the people in Northern Ireland generally wanted the politicians in Westminister to act, whatever that meant. But they certainly felt that the House had to do something, and the Secretary of State has responded in some way.
  The recent Mori poll published in the The Sunday Times on 8 June reflects such a desire on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. The House had to do something, and the Secretary of State responded in some way. Imaginative action is needed which will offer a chink of light in the prison of conflict. To that extent the Secretary of State has come up with something. I hope that he will take this point on board. I hope that he will not raise the expectations of people in Northern Ireland and in this country with what he has proposed today.
  When the Secretary of State set off on his round of talks in the early part of this Government's administration we said that we thought that he had not done his homework and that, although we wished him well, we did not think that he would succeed. We do not wish to be negative. We understand that he will talk with us and with other interested parties, so we want to study his proposals closely. He is responding to a general will. That is the indication that one gets from polls in the absence of elections.
  The Labour Party recognises the new desire of the people of Northern Ireland and of the country in general to end the political vacuum that has existed over recent years. The politics of the extreme always thrive when society is given little or no responsibility for its daily government and administration. A way must be found to return power to the people of Northern Ireland, where responsibility will be shared by both communities and recognition will be given to the different inheritances of the two communities.
  Within a few months the Labour Party will have a policy on Northern Ireland that will be the product of between 18 months' and two years' hard work and consultation. As a good Opposition, we have stood back from the experiences of Government and used the benefit of our years in office in an attempt to provide an imaginative and fundamental option for the people of Northern Ireland. Despite differences of opinion on how best to achieve a settlement, it is clear that it is inevitable that direct rule from Westminster will have to continue, and it has to be spelt out that we recognise that direct rule has to continue until there is agreement between political parties in Northern Ireland about the best form of government for the Province.
  We recognise that there can be no coercion or forced withdrawal. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), who is not at present in his place, need not fear from a future Labour Government any bulldozing against the majority in Northern Ireland. Politics is the art of persuasion. We shall not be deflected from our search for a peaceful settlement by those who resort to violence and terrorism to undermine democratic processes. It will be the politics of persuasion and a question of consent. That has to be stated time and again for the benefit of those who may attempt to misinterpret what we say.
  For the time being, direct rule must remain. While we have such a system of governing Northern Ireland. it must

  1091
  be undertaken in the most responsible and sensitive manner. I must depart at this stage from what has been loosely called a bipartisan approach. The present Government have a pretty sorry record. I suppose that the Secretary of State, although I do not like to have to say so, must hold responsibility for a great deal of it, as custodian of the Northern Ireland interest in the Cabinet.
  On the social and economic front, the policies of the Government compare very poorly with Labour's record. I am sure that, in the main, hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies will bear testimony to the fact. It is not a party political point.
  I accept the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that one does not wish to magnify the differences. However, one cannot help spelling out the differences in this important area. That is what I intend to do. Unemployment in the Province has almost doubled in the past two years, to the point at which Northern Ireland has the highest number of unemployed people of any region. It has the highest level of infant mortality. It has the highest level of poverty. Almost one-third of the people are on the poverty line. Some of its housing conditions are the worst in Europe. One could continue with the catalogue.
  All the achievements of the last Administration in keeping levels of unemployment stable—
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman makes a loose statement about housing conditions being the worst in Europe. I do not believe his statement to be true.
  Mr. Pendry: I heard the hon. Gentleman say this in Committee. I said that conditions were amongst the worst in Europe. It is possible that conditions in Italy just about beat them. That is not a fact of which one can be proud. The previous Government were making tremendous inroads into these areas. All the achievements of the last Administration in keeping levels of unemployment stable, reducing the level of unfit houses and attracting new industry, have been squandered by the Government for the sake of an unproven economic theory.
  Our successes in civil and individual liberties have also been undermined. The Government have not followed in our footsteps. There appears to be no continuing review to ensure that the agencies set up in the early and mid-1970s are still fulfilling their proper function. The Equal Opportunities Commission is being starved of funds. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is effectively ignored by the Government. Much of the groundwork of the previous Government in creating a framework to protect the rights of the minority and, indeed, the majority community have been left to stagnate.
  While in Government we were concerned to take initiatives to reform social laws and to protect human rights. I shall briefly remind the House of some of them. In 1976 the Fair Employment Agency was set up. In the same year there was sex discriminaion legislation and th Equal Opportunities Commission was set up. In 1977 the Police Complaints Board was established. In 1978 reforms of rape and divorce law brought the situation into line with that in England and Wales. In the same year there was reform of the Emergency Provisions Act, following the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee set up soon after we came to office.
  1092
  We also ended detention without trial and undertook a thorough review of security policy with a view to returning to normal policing practices. By the time we left office in the spring of 1979 the number of troops in Northern Ireland had been reduced by almost one-third. The Government have followed that example with a phased withdrawal of troops from the streets of Northern Ireland in a sensible manner.
  We ensured that direct rule was of positive benefit to the people of Northern Ireland by introducing legislation that would probably have been discounted by any majority regime in Stormont. In addition, we realised that there was a direct correlation between the level of economic activity and the incidence of violence. It was no stroke of luck that the statistics of violent activity were at their lowest during those years when Labour's special economic strategy for Northern Ireland was approaching success. We have heard about 1980, and I accept what was said, but the fact is that over that period unemployment was certainly at its lowest.
  In that regard, I ask the Secretary of State to take careful note of what the Chief Constable of the RUC said in his report in 1980:
  "Adverse economic factors, while outside the control of the police, are none the less from a police standpoint not conducive to good order, and by the end of the year the effects of the recession were becoming evident in an increasing number of crimes committed for gain in areas of growing unemployment."
  We can see what happens when direct rule is not properly operated and wider considerations take precedence over the special needs of Northern Ireland.
  Our message to the Government is clear: "We are in favour of direct rule, but we want you to do far better on the economic front." It is in the tradition that we have established in Northern Ireland of seeking to protect human rights wherever possible, that we have tabled our amendment. I share the amazement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield at the Government's steadfast refusal to implement a review of the workings of the emergency provisions Act, but I noted in what the Secretary of State said a possible hope that the Minister of State, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will be influenced by our case. We hope so, because our amendment is neither a radical nor a soft proposal. A review would not detract in any way from our fight against terrorism.
  In many ways a review could pull the carpet from under the feet of those who try to justify their terrorist and other actions by claiming that they have not been allowed access to the due processes of common law. We are more concerned to have a review to ensure that the basic civil liberties of the large number of law-abiding citizens are not eroded. Wherever emergency powers of such magnitude are applied it is necessary for Parliament to be kept fully informed of the situation that made those powers essential in the first place.
  Mr. Kilfedder: In view of what the hon. Gentleman says about civil liberties, will he commit the Labour Party to the introduction of a Bill of Rights?
  Mr. Pendry: I cannot possibly commit the Labour Party to anything. It is not that kind of party. We shall discuss in the course of our democratic process what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and others have said. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the results of that democratic process in October.
  There is a substantial and growing body of opinion in favour of the kind of review that we suggest. Many

  1093
  speakers have referred to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Peace People and the jointly sponsored conference on the administration of justice, which has just been held in Belfast. All these have called for an immediate, independent review of the emergency powers. The Government would be unwise to ignore that. It would be to fly in the face of what they are trying to do in other areas.
  In mid-1974 the Labour Government instituted an inquiry by Lord Gardiner into the workings of the Act. That was only 18 months after the emergency provisions became law. Even after such a short time Lord Gardiner found plenty of scope for change, and we took most of his recommendations on board when we amended the Act in 1978. It is now time for another inquiry to be set up. Lord Gardiner said:
  "The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and in duration."
  We recommend the Government to set up that review as early as possible, so that the areas of disquiet and grievance, which are widely voiced, can be dealt with properly and fairly.
  We do not wish to pre-empt either the remit or the work of such an inquiry, but plenty of areas are in need of independent assessment. Hon. Members have referred to many of them, and I shall not describe them at length. There is no doubt that certain offences should be examined closely. We want to know whether the power of arrest and detention in the Act are still necessary. Where such powers are a constant irritant to certain sections of the community in Northern Ireland, the unquestionable duty of the Government is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fight against terrorism cannot be carried out without such powers. The Government should exercise their mind on that.
  Another cause of controversy is section 2(2) of the Act, which relates to bail. It puts upon the accused the duty of satisfying the court that he should be granted bail. Further, applications for bail by those charged with scheduled offences are dealt with only in the High Court in Northern Ireland. That is a significant departure from the normal processes of law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The House should be able to judge, after an inquiry, whether that departure is still necessary.
  I share the disquiet of many hon. Members about the operation of one-judge and no-jury courts. Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to them. We should examine that practice to see whether it should become a permanent feature in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. A number of suggestions for changing the system have been made. They should be given the deepest thought.
  The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech. He had a good point when he questioned whether there were enough judges and whether judges from the rest of the United Kingdom should be brought into Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that.
  I have a great admiration for judges, especially in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State spoke of the tremendous problems that they have. It is important to examine the effects of case-hardening in Northern Ireland. We cannot ignore the clear evidence that the number of acquittals has declined rapidly in recent years. That means either that fewer innocent people are being brought before
  1094
  the courts or that more are being unjustly convicted. On that issue alone the House would benefit from a fresh look at the administration of justice.
  I do not have time to go over some of the other matters that are worthy of review. The Minister of State has a clear duty to explain in clear terms—since the Secretary of State purposely did not because he was leaving the matter open—why the Government are refusing our legitimate request. A number of Conservative Members will want to be convinced. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked the Minister to convince him on a certain point. If the Government still refuse our request I shall call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends, and others who feel that our case is made out, to join us in the Division Lobby.
  9.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): A number of speeches have been made in today's debate that will have wonderfully concentrated the minds of many people on both sides of the Chamber and outside the House. The most notable example was the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, about whose speech I hope to make a few remarks later. I hope that he will not think it disrespectful if I start with an area of the debate that concentrates my mind wonderfully. I refer to the Opposition amendment and the duty that I have to try to persuade the House to avoid a vote, or, at least to vote for the Government's motion.
  Our motion seeks approval for the renewal of the two Acts, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Opposition amendment seeks to eliminate the approval that we seek for that and to substitute for it an agreement that it is time for a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
  I find myself in a paradoxical position when considering the terms of the amendment because these six-monthly statutory renewal debates represent, and should be regarded as representing, a welcome inquiry into the workings of the Act. As the debate has made clear, speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have shown our local mini-inquiry to be thoroughly penetrating and comprehensive. We can only welcome the sort of probing discussion, examination and questioning that we have had in today's renewal debate. We had a similar debate six months ago and no doubt there will be another in six months time. This sort of regular parliamentary inquiry into the workings of an Act is not confined to today. It goes on all the time, for example in correspondence between Members and Ministers, in parliamentary questions and in the continuous surveillance which is carried out by the functioning of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights which publishes its findings. Taken together, those avenues of examination and inquiry lead to considerable areas of factual knowledge and understanding about the workings of the Act, which is what the amendment asks for.
  The bail provisions of section 2 of the Act, to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) specifically referred, have been subject to considerable criticism by the Standing advisory committee and, more formally, by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) when he led the Opposition on Northern Ireland matters. Whatever we may think of the merits of those provisions

  1095
  there is no difficulty in establishing how they are working. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the year ended 31 March 1980, 45 per cent. of bail applications for scheduled offences were successful. We can furnish the figures to show how many suspects accused of serious terrorist offences have absconded from bail. There is no problem in discovering how the Act is working.
  To take another example, section 7 of the emergency provisions legislation covers trial without jury, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is controversial. I do not dispute that. The merits of that provision never fail to get a proper examination, scrutiny and discussion when we debate renewal. The workings of the non-jury provision are factual rather than controversial. The facts show that in 1979 pleas of guilty were made in 79 per cent. of the cases that came before the non-jury courts. Because the accused pleaded guilty, in those cases there would have been no jury under the normal system.
  The number of guilty pleas in ordinary cases, in ordinary jury courts, is even higher than the 79 per cent. of guilty pleas in non-jury courts. There is nothing out of the ordinary about the substantial proportion of guilty pleas. We know the facts about the workings of the Act.
  Let us consider the controversial powers of arrest, detention and search provided in section 11. The merits of the powers for which we seek renewal may be debatable—indeed, they have been extensively debated today. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the hazards of the arrest provisions in the normal working of the rule of law. But the workings of those provisions, into which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wants an inquiry, are not difficult to establish. They can be specified in reply to questions. For example, I answered a parliamentary question last month which showed that under section 12 of the parallel Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976—which provides for arrest and detention without charges for 48 hours, and for an authorised extension of that period for up to five days—1,048 people were arrested in Northern Ireland to the end of March 1981, of whom 486 were charged with offences.
  We know, and can inform the House at any time, about the workings of the Act into which the right hon. Gentleman seeks an inquiry. There is no problem in establishing the facts. I could give many other examples of how the Act is working—facts about the intervals between arrest and trial, about finds of firearms and explosives under the power of search provisions and about the wearing of hoods in public under section 26. I shall not weary the House with all the facts that I could adduce, save for referring to one overriding fact. The combination of the availability of information and the use to which that information can be put, and is put, in debates such as today's makes it clear, to me at any rate, that the workings of the Act are clearly known and knowable through our regular parliamentary processes.
  That is the background against which I approach, and against which I wish the House to apprach, the Opposition amendment, which calls for
  "a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings"
  of the Act. Such an inquiry is unnecessary—it is positively udesirable in present circumstances. My approach is neither pedantic nor disingenuous in referring to the facts.
  1096
  I do not oppose inquiries into some of the specific areas covered by different sections of the Act. There have been such inquiries in the past, and on the whole they have done some good. Lord Gardiner's inquiry in 1975 into aspects of prison practice is a case in point. The right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde both referred to that. Lord Diplock's committee of inquiry resulted in sections of the emergency provisions Act bearing on the court and mode of trial for scheduled offences. There was the Bennett inquiry into police interrogation methods for terrorist offences.
  The point about all the inquiries was that they sprang from evident and open disturbing facts about particular situations. It was not the workings of the legal, social or judicial systems which were shrouded in mystery. On the contrary, the workings were clearly seen. The inquiries sought remedies for specific abuses.
  What I dislike about at least one way of interpreting the Opposition's proposal—and I fear that the idea would gain wider credence outside the House—is that the Opposition are so uneasy about the possibility of some hidden, nameless or undiscovered scandal lurking beneath every aspect of the emergency provisions Act that they believe that a broad-brush, generalised, wide-ranging inquiry—an omnibus Bennett-Gardiner-Diplock inquiry—is necessary. I do not believe it to be either necessary or justifiable.
  Another way of interpreting the Opposition's amendment is to regard it as less concerned with the Act and its workings and more concerned with the general, social and political environment in which it is operating. That is a rather different matter. Viewed in that way, the proposal for an inquiry would have had more merit. A strong case could be made for a general inquiry into the Act as and when there is a wholly changed and dramatically improved security situation. Public confidence in the dismantling of the Act, when the time to do so arrives, may properly demand nothing less than the wide-ranging general inquiry for which the Opposition have applied. Alas, the current security situation does not justify any such inquiry.
  Mr. Pendry: As so many organisations are showing their concern and are voicing it, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that their concern should be taken on board by the Government? If they can justify their actions through an inquiry, that is all to the good. There is a great deal of disquiet inside and outside Northern Ireland. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying.
  Mr. Alison: It does not behove the Opposition to echo generalised and nameless disquiet when they have access to factual information, which I am suggesting is readily available. In the present climate, a generalised inquiry into whether the environment is now better for examining the workings of the Act could only portend in the minds and emotions of many the possibility of an untimely relaxation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that in the past two months, following the first hunger strike death, terrorist incidents and activity have sharply reversed the recent downward trend. In the first four months of 1981 24 people died as a result of terrorist violence. Over the past two months 27 people have lost their lives. In six months the rate of loss of life through terrorist incidents has doubled as a result of the hunger strikes. We are now grappling with more violence, more

  1097
  and more novel forms of terrorist weapons and missiles—for example, acid as well as petrol bombs and blast bombs—more intimidation as a result of massive turn-outs at funerals and more illegal acts than when we considered the Act about six months ago. I earnestly advise the House not to be diverted by the Opposition's signpost towards a wide-ranging general inquiry. I fear that in the present circumstances that will lead only to a blind alley.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield argued that an inquiry might help in the context of the Maze dispute. With respect, I do not believe that it would. The activities that have put the men into the Maze as convicted criminals are murder and intimidation, including the intimidation of jurymen and possibly the judicial system. It is that sort of weapon or approach that Diplock manifestly found to be good cause for setting up what we now commonly call the Diplock courts.
  I do not think that an inquiry could overturn the reality that Diplock found to be fundamental to his proposals and recommendations. An inquiry could throw up doubts about the present operation of the Diplock courts. That would not help us remotely in the context of the Maze hunger strike and the men convicted under Diplock proceedings for the very crimes that made the Diplock courts and other courts of that sort inescapable and necessary.
  I accept the sincerity of the Opposition in pressing the idea of an inquiry. I accept that they are concerned that the Act should not be allowed to take on the characteristic of permanence.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other ministerial colleagues and I have often expressed that same concern. We are aware of the dangers of allowing the Act to become so familiar a piece of furniture that those responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland find it too difficult ever to turn it out. It becomes a familiar piece of the furniture in the room. We shall not allow ourselves to slip into that attitude of inertia and immobilism.
  I do not want to say that an independent review could not in any circumstances be a useful way of proceeding. That is a response that, I hope, is adequate, to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I can imagine conditions in which the Government might find it helpful to receive such guidance. A review might play a helpful role in dealing with the inertia to which I alluded earlier. As my right hon. Friend has noted, we have already put a great deal of work into considering the progressive phases by which the powers might theoretically be reduced at the right time—and not only theoretically. The continuing internal review of all the emergency provisions legislation a year ago resulted in a dismantling of the detention provisions, for example. I now respond to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davidson) that I should confirm that we are continuing such an internal study as a necessity. We are doing so and we are looking for the right time to make the change. We are keeping an open mind on that.
  I feel strongly that it would be misguided for the Government to ask an idependent body to suggest how a path might be laid out for dismantling the Act when the Government cannot see their way to setting out on that path. In the present circumstances, and particularly in the sensitive conditions prevailing today, a review to consider the workings of the Act could be taken only to suggest that
  1098
  the Government have begun to have doubts on whether major parts of the Act were working properly. That would be undesirable and far from true.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my hon. Friend considered the Great Britain dimension in these matters and is he aware that there is a substantial body of opinion in Great Britain that feels that it might be to the advantage of the criminal justice system if certain cases were heard by one judge, or perhaps three judges, in the absence of juries and that for those reasons, it would be advisable to march hand in hand with practice in this country, or at least take account of it?
  Mr. Alison: The controversies with which I am surrounded in the context in which I have responsibility in Northern Ireland are sufficiently great to make it desirable that I should avoid any comment on what might be appropriate in Great Britain.
  Mr. Concannon: I am finding this answer disappointing. The Opposition are not asking for the dismantling of the Act. We put forward the amendment to be as helpful as possible, but I am finding the attitude in the reply disappointing. We are asking for a review of the Act simply because, as the Secretary of State and others have said, no one can equate the terrorist situation today with what it was in 1973 or 1975. Things have moved on. Surely we should look at the Act to see whether it is working in the way in which we originally intended.
  Mr. Alison: Alas, things have moved on. They have moved into a sharply tumultuous phase in the Province. We hope that that phase will be short-lived, but there is the prospect of eight possible further deaths. The first four deaths led to a sharp upward movement in the level of terrorist violence, particularly murders. At the moment an inquiry could only make some people fear that we would relax the provisions that were protecting them or that we would upset things, when people's anxieties are beginning to increase. It is over the moment that the inquiry is being sought that we are finding the greatest difficulty in acceding to the right hon. Member's approach.
  I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who speaks from a wealth of experience—direct experience of Northern Ireland while he was Home Secretary and Prime Minister and, additionally, from having held other relevant high offices as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. He offered us a weighty analysis of the policies of successive Governments. He rightly described the key features of those policies as being to repress the IRA and other terrorism with firmness and resolution, to govern Northern Ireland fairly, humanely and effectively through direct rule and to seek the political development in Northern Ireland necessary for the reconciliation of its divided community. My right hon. Friend has today given the House an account of the Government's stewardship in those respects and our proposals for the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked where, in the long term, the activity was taking us. He asked what winning meant. The House is indebted to him for raising those fundamental matters in the way that he has and for being specific and clear in his proposals for the way ahead. His speech is something to be pondered; it is not for instant reaction. I shall not fall into the trap of giving an instant

  1099
  and detailed reaction. As he recognises, his detailed proposals deal with a number of problems and difficulties that require mature thought.
  However, three points are worth making. First, the right hon. gentleman states that his object is to restart a political discussion that gets away from sloganising. We should all endorse his warning against slogans. However, the right hon. Gentleman says that there are no easy solutions, and the slogan "Troops Out" offers no way ahead. Nor is there profit in easy talk about ending the guarantee, as though that statutory formula was an obstacle to progress that could otherwise be easily made and not a formal recognition that the outcome in Northern Ireland cannot be settled above the heads of the majority of its people, as is the reality, and that fact is recognised by all who think responsibly about the problem in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to conclude that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved by the British Government alone. As the Government have repeatedly said, part of the will to solve them must come from the people of Northern Ireland. The leaders of both parts of the community there must ask themselves—and, more important, must ask one another—what the projections of present positions and attitudes into the future is likely to bring in terms of peace and stability. Is there some better way than that of living together in peace and amity, which is what we all seek?
  Finally, my initial reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's idea of fresh discussions at Westminster is that it has an attraction. In an important sense, today's debate is itself such a beginning. My right hon. Friend has promised further debate at a later stage, when our proposals for a Northern Ireland Council have been worked up into a more detailed form. However, I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman means something rather more than that. The Government will certainly think seriously and with an open mind about what he said and what was said following his speech.
  Mr. Dunlop: When the Secretary of State said that elected members would be on the so-called advisory council, did he mean that hon. Members would be ex-officio members if and when the council is set up?
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend did not say that they would be ex-officio members. Indeed, he was at some pains—as was right—not to be too specific about the methods of nomination or appointment. It is precisely in that area that we wish to have talks with, among others, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop).
  As is appropriate, following the lead-in to discussions of this kind given by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I conclude with a word about the political proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend. We have, of course, listened carefully to what has been said about the proposals in the debate so far. The praise has been pretty faint, but in Northern Ireland that is far from being damned. I do not think that anybody has actually anathematised—that is the appropriate form of denunciation in the Province—my right hon. Friend's proposals. Even the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), although he made some fairly swingeing criticisms, was
  1100
  shrewd enough to perceive that he himself might either be consulted about membership or even come to enjoy membership and did not reject the proposals out of hand.
  Many hon. Members clearly accept that our proposal for a representative Northern Ireland Council is a sensible and positive response to political conditions in the Province. The inability of the local parties to agree on how power should be exercised places a substantial constraint on the action that any Government can take. To ignore that is to fly in the face of reality. I welcome the growing understanding in the House of the Northern Ireland situation and the political realism shown by many hon. Members in the debate.
  We shall not ignore those who have been critical or sceptical of our proposals. We shall consider carefully what they have said. I had the impression, however, that many of our critics today were moved not by a fundamental disagreement with us but more by disappointment. They did not so much feel that the establishment of a representative council was wrong in itself—rather, they were disappointed that we had not instead pursued their own pet schemes or that something more ambitious had not been feasible.
  I turn to the immediate future. Against the background of a large number of ideas and proposals put forward for a much longer time perspective, be it independence or unification, my right hon. Friend has put forward practical proposals for the immediate future. I believe that that is the proper duty of Government in this context. My right hon. Friend has outlined his proposal for a representative council to re-establish the political forum that Northern Ireland has lacked for so long. We hope that discussion can take place with the parties during the summer about the details of the scheme and that we may come back to the House in the autumn with fully spelt out proposals. Certainly we accept that the House should have a further opportunity to debate the Government's policy and to give its approval to it.
  I touch upon a point raised in an earlier intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He feared that approval for a motion for the continuance of either Act might itself entail a wholesale, carte blanche approval of my right hon. Friend's proposal for a political advisory committee. That, of course, does not follow. We have given far too few specific details of what is entailed for such broad or generalised approval to be implied by any vote tonight or by the Lobby into which any hon. or right hon. Member goes. We have merely said that we intend to proceed in this direction and that against the background of that intention, declaration and determination we intend to take into account the wisdom and the counsel of those in the House and outside who have wide experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland and are committed to its future. It is against that background that we shall determine the details.
  Questions have been raised tonight about whether there could ever be an occasion on which there might be a majority or non-majority based on the sectarian divisions in a vote on the type of matter on which the council would advise. Questions have been raised as to whether we should base the new set-up on the electoral results of the European Parliament or of the last local government elections. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Down, North, I should say that it was the latter that we had in mind. A wide range of other detailed points will be discussed.

  1101
  We believe that the principle of a nominated parliament, perhaps taking the place of or leading up to an elected parliament, is acceptable and is the right and proper way to proceed for the future.
  Question put,That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:Ayes 213, Noes 279.

  Division No. 243]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey)

  George, Bruce

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Ginsburg, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Golding, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Ian

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Homewood, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hooley, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Huckfield, Les

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Conlan. Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cowans, Harry

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  John, Brynmor

  Craigen, J. M.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Davis, T. (B ham, Stechf'd)

  Litherland, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Dempsey. James

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dixon, Donald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dobson, Frank

  McElhone, Frank

  Dormand, Jack

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Douglas, Dick

  McKelvey, William

  Dubs, Alfred

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dunn, James A.

  McWilliam, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Magee, Bryan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  English, Michael

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Maxton, John

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ewing, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Field, Frank

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fitt, Gerard

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Flannery, Martin

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ford, Ben

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Forrester, John

  Newens, Stanley

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alison, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Ancram, Michael

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Arnold, Tom

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Corrie, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Banks, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bendall, Vivian

  Critchley, Julian

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Crouch, David

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Best, Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dover, Denshore

  Blackburn, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Blaker, Peter

  Dunlop, John

  Body, Richard

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bradford, Rev R.

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  Brinton, Tim

  Elliott, Sir William

  Brittan, Leon

  Eyre, Reginald

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Farr, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Buck, Antony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Ogden, Eric

  Stallard, A. W.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoddart, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Park, George

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Parker, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Penhaligon, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Tilley, John

  Prescott, John

  Tinn, James

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Torney, Tom

  Race, Reg

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Radice, Giles

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Richardson, Jo

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weetch, Ken

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Welsh, Michael

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Robertson, George

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Whitlock, William

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ryman, John

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Sever, John

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Woodall, Alec

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Sheila

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. George Morton.

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fox, Marcus

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Mellor, David

  Fry, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Goodhew, Victor

  Molyneaux, James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Monro, Hector

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gow, Ian

  Moore, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Morgan, Geraint

  Gray, Hamish

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mudd, David

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Grist, Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hannam, John

  Osborn, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Heddle, John

  Pawsey, James

  Henderson, Barry

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hicks, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Hooson, Tom

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hordern, Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Raison, Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Renton, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Knox, David

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Lang, Ian

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Luce, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Silvester, Fred

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Keith

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Speller, Tony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Spence, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Sproat, Iain

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Major, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Martin

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Stokes, John

  Ward, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tapsell, Peter

  Watson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wells, Bowen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thompson, Donald

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Trippier, David

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wakeham, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Wall, Patrick

  Mr. John Cope.

  Waller, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 45.

  Division No. 244]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cope, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Corrie, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Alison, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Crouch, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom

  Dover, Denshore

  Aspinwall, Jack

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Dunlop, John

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beith, A. J.

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eggar, Tim

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Best, Keith

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Farr, John

  Blackburn, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bradford, Rev R.

  Fox, Marcus

  Bright, Graham

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Brinton, Tim

  Fry, Peter

  Brittan, Leon

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Buck, Antony

  Gorst, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Gow, Ian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gray, Hamish

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Greenway, Harry

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grylls, Michael

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hannam, John

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hastings, Stephen

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Maxton, John

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Meacher, Michael

  Canavan, Dennis

  Newens, Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cryer, Bob

  Race, Reg

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Richardson, Jo

  Dixon, Donald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dubs, Alfred

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Fitt, Gerard

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Aberfillery)

  Flannery, Martin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Welsh, Michael

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wright, Sheila

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours

  Lamond, James

  and Mr. Clive Soley.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Heddle, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Henderson, Barry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hicks, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hooson, Tom

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Osborn, John

  Hurd. Hon Douglas

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Penhaligon, David

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Knox, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lang. Ian

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Latham, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Raison, Timothy

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Loveridge, John

  Renton, Tim

  Luce, Richard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  MacGregor, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Roper, John

  Madel, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Major, John

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Marland, Paul

  Rossi, Hugh

  Marlow. Tony

  Rost, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mather, Carol

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mellor, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Sims, Roger

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Speed, Keith

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Speller, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Spence, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Hector

  Sproat, Iain

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Squire, Robin

  Moore, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wall, Patrick

  Stanley, John

  Waller, Gary

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stevens, Martin

  Watson, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stokes, John

  Wheeler, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Tapsell, Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Thompson, Donald

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Viggers, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wakeham, John

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  and

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

  Walker, B. (Perth )

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves of the Government's proposal to continue the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for further periods.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
10.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time motion No. 3:
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Mr. Atkins: I addressed the House for nearly 50 minutes earlier, when I referred to both the orders. I shall not say any more about them now, but if a debate arises and I am asked to reply I shall ask for leave to do so.
10.26 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The subject of the debate is, as the Secretary of State has already observed, identical to that which has engaged the House throughout today's sitting. Indeed, it is one single debate extending from the commencement of business until one and a half hours after the motion which has just been put from the Chair, with only this difference—that the convenience of the House has been suited by taking the Division in the middle of the debate. That is so convenient to many hon. Members that if we had the advantage—which we do not—of a sessional committee on procedure the committee might well consider whether it would not be convenient to adopt this method more frequently so that hon. Members could have the Division at a reasonable hour—perhaps rather earlier than the conventional meaning of that term—and then those who were still interested in the topic could continue the debate until its natural limit.
The debate has been, and is, one which fully justifies the maximum avail of the time of the House, and I do not think that it meeds any apology if hon. Members, particularly hon. Members representing seats in Northern Ireland, take the opportunity to carry further the matters which have engaged the House already.
The debate today was not approached by hon. Members entirely without preparation. It is true that the Secretary of State had been keeping his cards close to his chest; his consultations always stopped short at the point at which any indication would be given of what the Secretary of State had in his mind. The speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was designed to be in the nature if not of a bombshell at any rate of a breath of fresh air. However, we were provided by the press—thanks no doubt in part to the activity of the Government's public relations officials—with a reasonable preview of three points of view which would be put forward in the debate. First, we had a preparatory initiation into what would be stated by the Secretary of State. Where the leak came from may or may not be a matter for subsequent investigation. Then the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, which he already had in typescript at a fairly early hour yesterday, somehow managed to get into the hands of the press, so
1108
that the shock which hon. Members listening to it might otherwise have sustained was somewhat softened and modified.
There was, however, a third contribution to the debate, of which we also had the benefit from the newspapers. Paradoxically, it was by an hon. Member who did not find it necessary to attend the debate at all. We were not merely told that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would not be present; we were told the reasons why he would not be present. They were reasons entirely consistent with the attitude which that hon. Member has constantly maintained towards the House and are significant for the real implications of his politics.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North has made no secret of his belief that the views of the House are unimportant where the future of Northern Ireland is concerned, of his contempt for the House, of his readiness to abuse the House both inside it and outside, and of his repudiation of any allegiance to the House.
The essence of the union of the United Kingdom is its Parliament. It is not possible to be a Unionist and to sustain the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, at the same time, to repudiate the authority of this House of Commons, for the two are one and the same thing. The emphasis and weight of the doings and utterances of the hon. Member for Antrim, North over the years have been a repudiation of the authority of the House—a repudiation which has not been limited to words but which has extended to deeds; the attempt, which came near to wrecking the economy of the Province four years ago, to stage a revolt to coerce the House in matters concerning Northern Ireland.
Curiously, this constituted a strange link between the absent contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the present contribution which most of us were fortunate enough to have the pleasure of hearing from the former Prime Minister. They are both in favour of "Go it alone". They are both opposed to the continued maintenance of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are both in favour of an independent Ulster.
It is true that the independent Ulster that is a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North does not entirely resemble the independent Ulster that was adumbrated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but they have this important thing in common, that they look to a future which, in the common phrase, will be settled by the people of Northern Ireland for themselves. That phrase in itself is a repudiation of the union; for no part of the United Kingdom can itself settle its future except that its future will be part of the United Kingdom—that self-determination which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) confirmed again, anything else notwithstanding, is firmly held to by the Labour Party—as it must be by that party's very nature.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made a speech which was remarkable chiefly as coming from someone who had so recently been Prime Minister and who had for so long in positions of supreme responsibility been concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It was its unrealism which was its extraordinary quality. He opened his speech by advancing the proposition that somehow we must make an end of the apparently interminable vista of the fluctuating but continuing attack on that part of the United Kingdom by the Irish Republican Army. He posed the question—he posed it to himself, he posed it to the House—how are we to make an end of this?

1109
How are we, not content with repression, with periods of exhaustion alternating with the continual recurrence of the threat of the IRA, to eliminate it entirely? He came to the extraordinary conclusion that the answer was an independent State of Northern Ireland.
How could the right hon. Gentleman, with all his knowledge, envisage—how could any person, who has the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and of the history of Ireland, envisage—that an independent Ulster would not be the object of the even more violent and determined hostility of the IRA?
There would be actually an additional dimension—or, rather, there would be the development of a dimension that has been seen all too clearly already in the past year or so—namely, an international dimension such as has not been experienced previously, and on a scale that has not been experienced before. Those forces in different parts of the world which at present covertly support the IRA and are bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to do and say things inconsistent with the essence of a United Kingdom embodying the Province would have free rein. The whole issue would be thrown into the international arena. The analogy of Lebanon would not be far fetched as a description of what might be expected by an independent Ulster under attack from an IRA with hopes and prospects such as it has never enjoyed before. It was a fantastic injection into the debate of something wildly unreal. It was remarkable principally in that it could actually fall from the lips of a former Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State had his own little contribution to unveil to the House. He did not use the words used by the Minister of State. The Minister of State described the proposal as a "nominated Parliament". That was a useful lapsus linguae, if such it was, because the sheer impossibility, incompatibility, contradictory nature of the term "nominated Parliament"—I suppose there was a nominated Parliament of a sort for a year or two during the Commonwealth, but it is not a term one normally uses in the hearing of the House—was enough to put the House on its guard against the absurdity of what was being proposed. Of course, we were not given details—they had not been worked out. But we were invited, if not by our vote, to say broadly "What a jolly good idea!" and to wish it the best of luck.
As far as we can gather from the few signs vouchsafed by the Secretary of State, there would be a body of 50 people. They would be picked by a system not yet disclosed, or even worked out. The verb used was "nominated". They are to be nominated by the Secretary of State—
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Either the right hon. Gentleman was not listening or I did not make myself clear. I said that I would invite to serve on the council people nominated by the political parties from the elected sources that I described.
Mr. Powell: The elected sources that were described were the district councillors, the Members elected to the House and the Members elected to the European Assembly. A selection is to be made from among a fairly large body of people—I have not worked out the total pool from which they will be drawn, but it will run to several hundreds—upon a basis that will depend on any view on what the Secretary of State regards as the parties.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Quangos.
Mr. Powell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the notion of a quango is innocent and acceptable indeed compared with the monstrosity that I am inviting the House to consider. It has not done so yet because there has been no serious examination of the notion. We have barely had any details given to us. We are not to debate the issue for another six months. So we might take a few minutes now to consider what is before us.
I was saying, when I received assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover, that from this electoral college, as it were, this pool of nominated persons, 50 persons will be selected upon unknown principles from undesignated parties—we are not short of political parties in the Province—by the Secretary of State.
The council is to be an advisory body. It is to advise the Secretary of State. He is to put questions to it on the various matters with which he has to deal and, after due debate, it will provide him with its considered advice, which may be either unanimous—I leave that to the imagination of the House—or arrived at by some process of voting—I cannot think that anything so simple as the ordinary majority system that we have in the House would be acceptable in so complex and novel a body—at any rate, advice with dissent will be forthcoming.
The council will also advise on legislation. It will give its opinions upon the proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland, presumably in the form of Bids and Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention whether it would be legislation by Act of Parliament for Northern Ireland or only legislation by Order in Council. Perhaps he had not thought of that point. He merely said "legislation". I shall be prepared to give way to him at any stage when he feels moved to give the House a little more elucidation of the extraordinary proposition that he has casually flung into the air in the course of today's debate. So, the council, this nominated body, this body drawn from persons elected to be members of district councils, from persons elected to be Members of this House, the legislature of the union, and from persons elected to be Members of the European Assembly, is to advise the Secretary of State upon legislation.
There is a third function. The council is also to be a constitutional convention. It will be able to consider the future government of Northern Ireland. It will be able to consider various ways in which that part of the United Kingdom might be governed, administered and legislated for. In this context, there will be access to the council—communications to and from it—from the Irish Republic. It was not accidental that the interest of the Irish Republic and its government in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland was mentioned by the Secretary of State almost in the same breath.
The council, then, is to be all those things. It is to advise upon policy, upon legislation and upon the future constitutional arrangements for a part of the United Kingdom.
What will happen to its advice? I take the simplest example. Let us suppose that by a majority, or even unanimously, the advisory council says "We do not like this Order in Council. We do not want it." Will the Secretary of State nevertheless persist against the homegrown grass-roots expression of political opinion in the Province? Will he say "No, I shall take it to the Floor of the House of Commons and there I shall not only have the value of the Whips and my majority, but I might even get some support, as I usually do—and intelligent, helpful

1111
and constructive support—from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituents"? Or will he say "I am sorry, but that is it. I have had it. The advisory council will not wear it?"
But what happens in opposite circumstances, when the advisory council says "This is a good egg. Excellent. We have considered your Order in Council, Secretary of State, and we commend it." What is the position of Members of the House then? It occurs to me—this may be some comfort to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that it may help to abbreviate some of the proceedings on Northern Ireland legislation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say "The House will wish just to take note and formally to approve the order, but, of course, it has been considered by my advisory council in Northern Ireland, a thoroughly representative body, which I have selected in the manner I have explained from various collections of district councillors and others. They say that it is a good order; so how dare anyone get up in the House, so remote and alien from circumstances in Northern Ireland, and venture even to debate, let alone to criticise, it?"
How can hon. Members, who will eventually take responsibility to their constituents for that legislation one way or the other, presume, with their limited information and sources of advice, to do what we have done over the last seven years, namely, co-operate with the Government in the continual improvement of legislation, even under the stultifying procedure of Order in Council? A dilemma is created by the institution of such an advisory body. It is incompatible with the nature of the House. In no other context does any Minister dare to say to the House "I have taken political advice on the measures which I am about to lay before you." Of course, he takes advice from specialists and from various interested bodies—he hears and listens to them.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: Or from Central Office.
Mr. Powell: The Minister takes advice from all over, but he comes to the House as the one forum where all hon. Members have the equal right to participate in the legislative process.
There is no means of reconciling the representation of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the Kingdom in the House, a representation which, unless the Government at the last minute renege upon their undertakings—something which has not been unknown—will become a full representation as from the next Parliament, with the sort of set-up proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
It is an absurdity. It is an inherent absurdity and a manifest absurdity, but it is more and worse than that. It is a sinister absurdity.
Mr. Stallard: It must be a good idea.
Mr. Powell: It is certainly a good idea for somebody. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will regard this as a compliment, but he did not think of this for himself. I ask him to take that in the best possible sense. If it applies any balm after the criticisms of his notion which I have offered, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely welcome to it. But those from whom the idea comes well understand what the consequences of it would be.
They well understand that the constant conflict between Her Majesty's Government administering Northern
1112
Ireland and an advisory body, which, sitting and debating, no doubt, in public or leaking in public, would have a vested interest in being opposed to the Government, in taking the most extreme point of view in polarising every possible issue, would create rising frustration and be an obstacle to the work of government. Thus the pressure would be increased to say: "This is no good. We cannot go on like this. We must have a directly elected assembly and a Government responsible to it." Then we should go once again round the course which we know so well and which one hon. Member after another in the debate has admitted is impracticable.
Nevertheless, there are those who still hope that it can be brought about, because it involves breaking the link between Northern Ireland and this House of Commons. The first virtue of the advisory institution from their point of view is that it does that. It essentially destroys the function of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. It raises once again the spectre of a provincial legislature and executive incompatible with belonging to the United Kingdom, as the House and the people of Wales and Scotland discovered when they respectively debated and voted upon devolution in the last Parliament. It opens out a new channel whereby the Republic can be involved in the constitutional evolution of Northern Ireland.
The key to all this is that it would be a body that is corruptible. It would be a body upon which people could get to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) quoted what was no jocular remark by a former Secretary of State when, discussing the possibility of giving more power to the existing local authorities in Northern Ireland, he said that the difficulty was that no excuse could be found for paying them more. When people set about destroying a province or a nation, they go about it in the way that is customary—almost historic—in Irish experience. They go about it by corruption. It is ultimately only through corruption that men can be brought to participate in forswearing their own inheritance.
This is something that has been long intended. It is true that it is in an attenuated form just now. I remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, telling me in October 1979 "You can take it from me that there will be an Assembly." "Oh, no," he added, "I did not get that as a leak from the Cabinet. The thing has not gone to the Cabinet yet. Ministers do not yet know. But you may take it from me that there will be an Assembly." Well, we fought it off. It did not happen when those who passed that message expected it to happen in 1980. It will not even happen in 1981. But in 1982, in this attenuated form, which is as much as they can manage at present, they reckon it will just do. It will take them on their way.
There have been expressions of regret in the debate that all the honest attempts that the House and successive Governments have made to find some solution in Northern Ireland have been so unsuccessful. "Why", said one hon. Member after another, " a person hardly mentions one of those suggestions before scorn is poured on it, sometimes from both sides of the House." One or two hon. Members commiserated with the Secretary of State for having shared that experience today. I shall tell him why it happens. I will explain, for the reason is simple, why all these proposals, so well meant and so well intended, have foundered.

1113
Let me first, however, refer to a very interesting passage in the Secretary of State's speech. He was describing direct rule, and he came on very accurately—it was a well written passage—to describe the inadequacies of direct rule, due to the fact that this House and the hon. Members and Ministers in Her Majesty's Government have to deal with matters which in the rest of the Kingdom are dealt with by people on the spot, elected by the people on the spot, in various forms of local government body.
It was an absolutely accurate statement of the one practical difference—certainly the one practical difference which affects ordinary people—between the thing that we call direct rule and that which is not known as direct rule but is the rule in all other parts of the United Kingdom which hon. Members represent—the absence of ordinary common-or-garden local administration. The passage followed so naturally, so logically, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that one could almost see the paragraph indentation at the point where it did not lead to the conclusion to which in an earlier draft it had led. It led instead to something with which it had nothing to do.
That brings me to my explanation. In dealing with Northern Ireland, the House has consistently refused to apply its own principles. We may be as modest or self-deprecatory as we wish, but we in this country and in this House have acquired a good deal of wisdom over these 700 years or so. It is that wisdom which we flout whenever we deal with that part of the United Kingdom. We would not dream in any other circumstances of setting up a political advisory body in a part of the Kingdom represented in this House. We would not dream of saying "You should have an Executive which is recruited from people who have been elected to do opposite things". All the proposals, small and great, for the government of Northern Ireland fly in the face of the constitutional principles upon which this House exists. That is the reason why they all fail and why they all founder. They are unworkable for the reasons for which we do not have them in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Powell: I would rather not give way, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not mind. He and I—and it has been mainly he—have done a lot of preparatory work together for this, and we in Northern Ireland are much indebted to him for the constitutional doctrine so clearly and properly applicable to the Province which at some expense of time and trouble he taught to the House of Commons and to the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East used the expression "We have been pursuing dual policies". I am taking the phrase out of the context in which he used it, but it is a beautiful phrase to describe the way in which Parliament has acted since Northern Ireland, which was always its responsibility, returned in 1972 to be its direct responsibility. We have "pursued dual policies", and the Government are doing so at this very moment.
The Government say, as they must say of any part of the United Kingdom, that Ulster remains part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of its people so wish. But if one says that there is no choice but to treat Northern Ireland exactly as one would treat any other part of the United Kingdom, to govern it as any other part of the United Kingdom is and to represent it as any other part of the United Kingdom is. If we attempt to do otherwise, there is a contradiction which immediately bears its fruit.
1114
In one contribution it was said that the people of Great Britain are the guarantors of Northern Ireland. They are indeed, whatever was said in section 1 of the 1949 Act. The right hon. Member for Mansfield was quite right when he said that the guarantee was not a paper or a statutory one. It is the inherent guarantee that applies to any part of the United Kingdom represented in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As he said, it is a consequence of logic.
Moreover, it was said that the guarantors are entitled to something in return for their guarantee. So they are. Each part of the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the whole of the United Kingdom, but only upon condition that that part, claiming as its birthright to be part of the United Kingdom, fulfils the laws of the United Kingdom and complies with the constitutional procedures—representation and all the rest—of the United Kingdom.
That is the condition, the ticket, the price. Those who would provide Northern Ireland with different laws, Governments and constitutions contradict the guarantee itself and deny the assurance that they gave to the people of Northern Ireland. They do not do it in secret; for the contradiction is well seen and understood by the enemies of this country, who thereby are the enemies of that, the most vulnerable part of this country.
In that ambiguity, that self-contradiction, lies—I now repeat something that I remember telling the House nine years ago—the ultimate guilt of this House and of successive Governments for the suffering of our fellow citizens in that Province.
11.2 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: One is bound to listen to the right hon. Member for Down., South (Mr. Powell) and envy his superb intellect. One might say that he has done an incredible demolition job on the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The only trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman has done a demolition job on a building that is not yet standing. His remarks—powerful though they are—suggest that he knows what is in my right hon. Friend's mind when he cannot possibly know. The right hon. Gentleman has only the sketchiest of details given in my right hon. Friend's speech. Therefore, to discuss that brief outline in the way in which he has is to stretch one's credulity.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of Parliament and what parliamentary democracy means in the United Kingdom. He is right to warn us of the dangers of tampering with parliamentary democracy—whether by trying to give Northern Ireland some form of representation it does not currently have, or whether by some form of devolved assembly—and the risk to ourselves and the powers we possess. That is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and it is our duty to listen. But I suggest that he should wait to see the details of my right hon. Friend's proposals before being quite so categoric in saying that they are bound to be as disastrous for Northern Ireland and the future of parliamentary democracy as he suggested.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to produce a Green Paper before the end of the year which spells out in some detail exactly what is in his mind. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about a nominated Parliament seemed

1115
to change the type of structure that my right hon. Friend had put before the House. Clearly a nominated Parliament is a considerable remove from an advisory council.
I cannot pretend that I was not disappointed that my right hon. Friend should feel that an advisory council was the first step when considering better institutions for the government of Northern Ireland. I have spent several years persuading my right hon. Friend and his predecessors that we cannot consider that Northern Ireland has proper, democratic Government while it is so limited in its local government facilities and is so under-represented in Parliament. It might be said that at least Northern Ireland has district councils. Those of us who know anything about Northern Ireland's local government structure know that those district councils have far more limited powers than councils in any other part of the United Kingdom. Instead of starting at the top, the Government might have considered that the redressing of that wrong, by expanding the powers of district councils, would have made a more positive contribution to democracy in the Province.
I am told that other parties in Northern Ireland would resist such proposals. However, if it is right that democracy should be seen to be working in the community of Northern Ireland, it must be right for Parliament to do what is right in the eyes of the majority of people and to give Northern Ireland its proper local government representation, just as we have now, thank God, decided to give Northern Ireland its proper parliamentary representation.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to consider some change to the area boards and to make some of their members more directly elected than at present. Area boards and district councils, if amended, could give a local government structure to Northern Ireland which—even if not exactly comparable to the structure in other parts of the United Kingdom—would at least expand the democratic process in local government.
I must admit to having some sympathy with the concept of an advisory council. I thought about this subject and wondered whether some consultative council was in my right hon. Friend's mind or whether I could have put that idea in his mind during our debate. However, when I read The Times I realised that my thoughts had been preceded by those of others, who had thought more diligently and effectively. As I read the story in The Times I was reminded of the words of the late Reginald Maudling. He once told me that in nature barrels leaked from the botton, but in politics barrels leaked from the top. With those succinct words ringing in my mind as I read that story, I realised that if we were to hear about an advisory council in the course of the debate Reginald Maudling's words would, once again, be proved true.
When I consider the details of the proposed advisory council, I am slightly perplexed to know why my right hon. Friend should think it necessary to have an advisory council to consider matters that could have reasonably been considered by a Select Committee, or, more simply, by a Royal Commission. The structure of government in Northern Ireland and the role of Northern Ireland Departments are the stuff of a Royal Commission. Those of us who have considered Northern Ireland's local government will be aware of the Commission under Sir Patrick Macrory which drew up the present structure. Why is it neccessary to have an advisory council instead of a
1116
Royal Commission or—if it is felt better to keep the matter within the House—a Select Committee made up of Northern Ireland Members and other hon. Members? That is my first question.
Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State on what basis he proposes to choose the representation from the district councils. At present 12 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland sit in this House—or will when the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat is filled. There are three Members from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. There are 26 district councils. Seventy per cent. of the votes cast in the local district council elections were cast for three parties, yet 12 parties have one or two district councillors within the vast mass of those made up by the three parties. On what basis, therefore, will my right hon. Friend select the 35 other members for his advisory council? Will it be done on the percentage of votes that they got in the district council elections? What equation will produce the 35?
Is it really reasonable to suppose that hard-working Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will find time to be active both in this House of Commons and on the advisory council in Northern Ireland? If we believe that a considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation has to be taken on the Floor of the House that requires the attendance of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, is it not asking rather a lot of them to be both here and at an advisory council in Belfast?
There is one deficiency—a uniqueness—about Northern Ireland in terms of Westminster politics, and that is that all those Ministers who represent the Departments in the Northern Ireland Government are not drawn from the Province. They are not drawn from the Province, whether they represent the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Looking into the future, there is little likelihood of any Ulster Member of Parliament actually being a Minister with responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
Because that is the situation there is no interface, as there is in Scotland or Wales, between the Ministers and the areas that they represent. Thus, to that extent, some form of consultative council or advisory council which provides the interface between the community of Ulster and those who seek to govern the Province would have some value.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, instead of drawing his advisory council purely from those who have been elected in one way or another—either, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, to perform a local authority function or to perform a function in Europe or here in Westminster—he might consider that advisory council in a broader community sense. It might have a greater value and validity in the minds of Ulster people if those who made up the council were drawn from the whole community and not just from the politicians. Why not include the leaders of Northern Ireland industry, agriculture or the trade unions? In their own narrow sense they are as representative of part of the community as are the politicians. A council that drew so widely from the community would be of more value in creating the interface between Government and people.
Perhaps such a council would have another value. Instead of creating this extra-parliamentary committee, which, as the right hon. Member for Down, South warned us, may pose an inherent threat to the continuance of Westminster parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland terms in the way in which that democracy applies to the

1117
United Kingdom, there could be a community council, smaller, perhaps, than 50 but closer to the Secretary of State, and more of a consultative body in terms of the running of the community, its economy, fanning and social problems. Would that not have a value to the Secretary of State which might make his job and those of his Ministers more effective in explaining to the community what he is seeking to do and hearing from its leaders their views on his proposals?
Such a body would not have a legislative function. It could not have such a function. It would simply be advisory. Such a body would clearly not be the right body to look at the three points that he has suggested that his advisory council would examine. A Secretary of State's council made up of a mix of politicians and community leaders would, I like to believe, close the gap that exists and will continue to exist while Northern Ireland cannot be governed by Ministers who have constituencies in the Province.
In those terms, I offer these suggestions to my right hon. Friend. I offer them at this moment because the advisory council is still in the process of being structured. Whatever suggestions might be made about how the advisory council might appear when hon. Members debate the Green Paper or whatever be the form in which the Government choose to present it, this seems to be the moment to feed in my thoughts.
11.16 pm
Mr. Wm. Ross: I listened with some interest earlier to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) pontificating about activities in Northern Ireland over the last three months. We have heard all sorts of theories about Northern Ireland since at least 1968. What worries me is that some of the fancy theories were actually put into practice. Each has ended in abject failure. The reason is that all flew in the teeth of reality.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that the Labour Party was embarked upon a course of allowing us self-determination so long as we were determined to commit suicide. That is a course that the people of Northern Ireland have no intention of following. We will not follow it. We will not have any device, no matter how that device is constructed, that sets us on the path to destruction.
I do not wish to take up much time, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to refer briefly, however, to the two orders that we are asked to pass. I thought that the effect of direct rule was stated by my Roman Catholic constituents in recent articles in local newspapers. An article in The Londonderry Sentinel says:
"Let us not forget that it is the Catholics who are suffering at the hands of the IRA through extortion, knee-capping, and the destruction of property, plus many other added terrorist ideals."
In The Belfast Newsletter of 16 June there was an account of a Londonderry man who had been shot in both legs by the IRA and had had to have one leg amputated. His mother had described the terrorists as
"'Satan's slaves' from whom Ireland needed protection."
The mother urged all decent people to get together to save other young men from the fate suffered by her son, Noel, a 28-year-old father of five.
Added to that are the riots that we have experienced in Londonderry over many years, not least over the past few months. There has been endless destruction of property and attacks emanating from the Creggan and the Bogside
1118
in particular on law-abiding citizens. My constituents who live in those areas have, above all people, been put into the hands of the murderers, the gunmen, the arsonists and the bombers. If the newspaper reports are to be believed, my constituents are in terror of their lives. That is a very true indictment of successive Secretaries of State who have allowed that condition to pertain for so long in the city.
I deal only with that city, because it is the part of my constituency where the problem is most rife. However, it is not the only one, as the Secretary of State knows. Hon. Members who represent the many other areas that are similarly affected will no doubt talk of them.
There is a cry from the streets in my constituency, a cry that is echoing more and more clearly not only from the Protestant population but from the Roman Catholic population. Simply stated, it is "Get the IRA off our backs". The people do not care much what measures are needed to get it off their backs.
There is no denying what the folk are saying, and what they have been saying more and more clearly for years. It is now coming through more and more clearly in the press as well. A Government who do not heed that cry and who do not take the necessary steps, whatever those steps may be, to dispose of that evil cancer in Northern Ireland society, will be, and have been, judged a failure in Northern Ireland.
Are the Government now prepared seriously to do something about that problem, or shall we go on with the nonsense so clearly exposed earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?
11.22 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have tonight heard a remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). One of its most compelling and outstanding qualities was that it added considerable force to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he needed an advisory council. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South I am much more convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments than I was when I first heard them.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced a powerful argument in favour of the responsibility of the House. He rightly reminded us that ultimate responsibility for legislation in Northern Ireland rested with the House. But what he did not fully perceive—or what, if he perceived it, he did not fully state—was that one can discharge that kind of responsibility only with knowledge. The House cannot discharge its obligations to the people of Northern Ireland unless it has a proper recognition of the reaction of the people in Northern Ireland to the policies put forward by the Government.
I have never supposed for one moment that the authentic voice of Northern Ireland was represented by the majority of Northern Ireland Members. One of them—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—is boycotting the House. Great as is my respect for the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not believe, have never believed, and do not expect to be convinced, that he is an authentic representative of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have listened to many other hon. Members from the Province and I do not think that they are truly representative of the people of that Province. If that is true—and I suspect that most hon. Members would agree

1119
that it is—any additional information that the House can obtain is essential if we are fully to discharge the obligations that the right hon. Gentleman reminded us of.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said, as a general proposition "The Province is part of the United Kingdom and therefore should be governed in precisely the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom." That cannot be. That is an illusion. That is nonsense. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over education. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over housing. Why not? Because they would abuse it as they have in the past and as they will again.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Bunkum.
Mr. Hogg: We who have had to look back at what has been done in Northern Ireland since the 1920s know that it is not bunkum. We are not prepared to give to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland anything approaching unfettered control. We have to contemplate something new.
Speaking on behalf of myself and, I suspect, most other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion. It is more likely that we shall have a truly representative voice that way than we do from hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.
11.26 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of making a speech in the debate, but the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) requires a few comments from one or two Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman made a devastating speech and an analysis against the Government's proposals that many of us will go along with, up to a point. He referred to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and opposed his proposal.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made only one proposal—that there should be full integration. In other words, he said that we should leave the situation as it is and continue with Members from Northern. Ireland having their say in this House, as before. Over a number of years many proposals and many attempts have been made to reach a solution in Northern Ireland. None of them, including those by the right hon. Gentleman, have been successful.
The violence in Northern Ireland has continued. The proposals from various sides have been rejected. I am not close to Northern Ireland, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that Northern Ireland Members are not representative of the Northern Ireland people. They represent the people who elect them. They are not representative of everybody in Northern Ireland. That must be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is representative of the views of those who elect him. Others represent other views. We are victims of history.
I should like to put the case as someone who is not close to Northern Ireland, who is not looking at the problem from an Ulster point of view, but who has the view of the rest of us in the United Kingdom. I refer to those who look across the water to Northern Ireland, whether we are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Church of England, Muslim,
1120
or anything else. We look with horror at what is happening to our people in that Province. We look with horror at the violence, whether it be committed by the gunmen on one side or on the other. No one will suggest that it has only been the gunmen from the IRA who have been involved—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Pretty well.
Mr. Heffer: Over the years gunmen from both sides have been involved. There is no point in moving away from reality. We have looked on all of this with horror. We have had some positive proposals from some of my colleagues who say that we should get the troops out. Some actually suggest that we get our troops out and put in United Nations troops—as though that would solve the problem. It would not solve the problem, any more than the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East of an independent Ulster.
What would happen to the minority? Would there not still be a Protestant ascendancy in an independent Ulster? None of us wants that. What is the solution? We have heard a million solutions and we have witnessed an attempt to move in the direction of a solution by the Government. They do not say that it will work, and in my view the right hon. Member for Down, South is right—it will not work.
I said that we are the victims of history. This argument is not the same as the argument about devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. I was against such devolution to those countries. But this is not the same argument. Originally England conquered Ireland—[Interruption.] That situation was accepted in Wales a long time ago—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) may not have accepted that, but the overwhelming majority of the people in Wales have accepted it in a recent vote.
Historically, the position is different with Ireland. The people in Ireland over hundreds of years wanted measures of independence. There was the Grattan Parliament, and all sorts of different things. We insisted on maintaining our control, until the border developed. No matter whether we have direct rule once again, a continuation of integration, some sort of advisory council, or this fantastic idea of a nominated Parliament—whatever that means—the problem will not be solved until the border is eliminated. Incidentally, I have never heard of such a thing as a nominated Parliament. There is either an elected Parliament or a nominated council of some sort.
Until the border is eliminated, the problem will remain. It will keep coming up, if not in one generation then in the next, and the one after that. That is the crux of the problem. We have to find out how we can reach a peaceful solution to the problem of the elimination of the border. How do we get rid of it? How can we accommodate the millions of Protestants in Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland, which is Roman Catholic? How can we have an agreement whereby they will live in harmony and peace? Do we need, as a first step, representation from North and South on some type of council? I do not know. However, we shall never solve the problem until we address ourselves to the issue and work might and main to reach a solution.
11.34 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: Tonight's debate has seen the culmination of a change that has been

1121
coming about in the overall debate on the politics of Ireland. That change has been coming and, tonight, has taken expression not least from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), because he offered a solution which, although I do not agree with it, opened the debate. That has been recognised and spelt out by the debate in the Labour Party about what our policy should be.
That has been further highlighted by the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It has been brought to a head by the election of the late Bobby Sands and the continuing hunger strike. If we ignore that, we ignore a painful fact that will not go away.
I listened with great care to the suggestions made by the Secretary of State. I wish them the same success that I wished the talks that he initiated a year ago. However, I fear that they will fail, for the reasons that the representatives of the Unionist parties have spelled out. The problem for the Unionist parties, as I understand it, is that they cannot enter into any meaningful negotiations—not because they are not honourable people or because they do not think that there is a problem but because, for them, to enter into negotiations represents an explicit recognition that there is something special and different about Northern Ireland, whereas their case is that they want unity with the United Kingdom and a form of local government which is not essentially dissimilar to that which any other part of the United Kingdom can expect. That is a logical and understandable position to adopt. If I held a Unionist view, which I do not, I would share that point of view and would not negotiate. That is the problem which time and again faces Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland.
There is another logic available, which is the logic that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned, that we move towards a united Ireland. There are problems with that, however. The Times in its editorial today said:
"The Ulster question goes to the heart of allegiance and national identity. That is the root issue of political society".
The problem is that The Times did not go on beyond that to question the entity of Ulster as it was set up in the 1920s. A large percentage of the population do not accept it as a legitimate State. That position is not new. We have heard that the violence was decreasing until the recent death of Bobby Sands. That is true. The figures for violence in Northern Ireland have for years gone up and down like a roller coaster ever since the State was created.
The alternative is to work towards a reunited Ireland with safeguards for the minority in that united Ireland. I recognise that that path is strewn with difficulties and dangers. It must be. No Opposition Member believes that the people who believe in the union do not have real and genuine fears that they will be a minority in a united Ireland. Some of those fears are grossly exaggerated and I do not think that they are always real fears. but fears are what matter, those fears exist and must be dealt with.
There is a wider dimension as we have to consider the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, from the point of view of the British people as a whole. This country has made its name for political democracy in the furthest corners of the world, yet tonight we are discussing an order that will undermine that democracy of which we are so proud. It is precisely the growth and extension of Acts of Parliament which have trespassed on the civil liberties of our citizens that cause so much
1122
concern. Democracies are seldom broken overnight. They are whittled away. The core of the rock within is the need to keep stepping up the sort of legislation which eats away at people's civil liberties. We proscribe political parties. We deport people from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Those are serious matters, which eat out the heart of a democracy. We cannot allow that to continue. We must deal with the political problem that causes it. I recognise that we cannot simply discuss those acts overnight as though they are of no importance, but we must grasp the political nettle that lies underneath.
When people say, as some have today, that to talk about a reunited Ireland is to surrender to terrorism, they could not be further from the truth. Above all, they are allowing the terrorists to define the terms of the argument. I refuse to have the terms of the argument defined for me by terrorists or paramilitaries of any sort. It is reasonable for me to hold the view—as I have since long before the present troubles broke out—that the only sensible course is a reunited Ireland. To say, as some have tried in the debate, that that is a surrender to terrorism is a dangerous nonsense.
The importance of the debate within the Labour Party is that it gives some hope to the minority community in Northern Ireland that there is another way besides that of violence. My criticism of the Government's actions in a number of areas is that they almost assume that there are only two sides to the Irish problem—those who use violence and those who do not. It is my experience that not only the protesting prisoners but others who associate with them are as split and divided in their attitudes as any other political group. For example, some hunger strikers want political status, and nothing less will do. Let us be clear what we are talking about. Political status means having a command structure in prisons. That is what it is about. That is the one issue on which we should never give way. There are many other issues on which we can give way. The command structure is wanted by the hard-liners. But many others, both in the prisons and outside, who support them want a way off the hook. The difficulty is that when we take a hard line we reinforce the hard-liners on the other side. That is the failure of that policy and of the policy of pretending that we will not talk about the possibility of a reunited Ireland because to do so would be to encourage terrorism. I do not believe that it would do that. I am not prepared to have the terms of the debate defined in that way.
I would like time to say something about the way that we should approach the problems or reuniting Ireland because that needs to be spelt out in detail. It would not be in order to do that now. I recognise that the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the debate. With that proviso I draw my comments to a conclusion.
11.43 pm
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: One of the advantages of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described as an odd procedure—that of having a debate concluded at about 10 o'clock and then started again—is that it has enabled a number of contributions—six in all—on the subjects that we have been debating all day to be made by those who did not have a chance to speak earlier. Five of the six devoted themselves mostly to the second order. One, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), referred mostly to the first order. I shall return later to the points that he raised.

1123
Five of the six Members dealt with one order and, needless to say, there were five different views. There are always five different views when five people speak about Irish affairs—and about many other affairs, also. It is not any surprise to me that the proposals that I put forward this afternoon setting out the intention of the Government to move in a certain direction were not received with unanimous rapture and applause. There were different attitudes to the proposals.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did not think much of the proposals. As we all expected, he argued his favourite line—that Northern Ireland should be treated in precisely the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, in spite of the differences that are all too obvious for some of us to see.
He believes that the governance of the Province should be exactly the same as anywhere else, with district councils and county or regional councils above them, with the final authority resting with the Government and Parliament. That is an understandable and respectable point of view. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have convinced his fellow Northern Irelanders that it is a good idea. I wish him luck if he wishes to do so. As I shall seek to show, he may be able to do so by means of some of the machinery that I have suggested.
I hear, as hon. Members will know and as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has heard, that many people in the Province are bitterly opposed to the return of power to local authorities because they do not believe that it will be properly used. They may be wrong. I merely say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that they have not convinced people in Northern Ireland that they are wrong. There still exists antipathy towards that course. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his endeavours not to persuade me that it is a good idea but to persuade the people to whom he seeks to apply it.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke about the composition that I proposed for the Northern Ireland Council. It would be my intention to invite people to serve on the council after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. The parties will be asked for a specified number of nominations related to their electoral strength. The term "nominated Parliament" has been used once or twice during the debate. That is not what the body will be.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is what the Minister of State called it.
Mr. Atkins: I want to clear up the issue for the right hon. Gentleman. I am saying that that is not what the body will be.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is what the hon. Gentleman said it would be.
Mr. Atkins: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state for the third time that it will not be a nominated Parliament. It will be a Northern Ireland Council whose members will be invited by me to serve.
1124
They will be drawn from a list that will have been nominated by the political parties from those who are elected representatives. They will be elected not to the council but to other bodies. I explained earlier that to set up an elected council of the sort that is proposed would take time. There would have to be primary legislation passed through Parliament to allow that to be done if it were to consider the range of matters that I wish it to consider. I am adopting the device that I have proposed because I believe that there is a need for speed. I believe that there is a need for this advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested that I could obtain advice in other ways. He was right to make that suggestion. In fact, I already obtain advice in other ways. He suggested that leaders of business, of trade unions and of agriculture, for example, should be appointed to bodies to advise me. I am already receiving advice from such persons in a number of areas. There is, for example, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which contains precisely the type of people to which my hon. Friend referred. There is the Industrial Development Forum, which advises my hon. Friend the Minister of State on industrial development matters. There is the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. There is a range of bodies to which I appoint members. The difference between those bodies and the body that I propose is that I shall not elect or choose those who sit on it. I shall invite people who are already elected—not by me, but by their fellow Northern Irishmen—to take positions. They will be nominated by their parties and I shall simply issue the invitation.
Although I have a great deal of advice from a wide range of quangos, the one thing which I do not have is advice from elected politicians outside the House. I get advice inside the House. That is extremely useful. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Down, South to this because he did not hear something which I said earlier, so perhaps he did not hear this comment either. All of us, when we make decisions, large or small, like to try to find out the effects of those decisions on the people whom they will mostly affect. We take advice from our constituents or from whatever source we want.
In matters concerning Northern Ireland, of course we get advice from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that we shall do ourselves any harm by getting as much advice as we can. I do not see why we should be any the worse off by getting advice from the advisory council. I for one would welcome advice from elected politicians not chosen by me but invited by me to serve, who will have three roles, which I shall go through quickly.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Atkins: I have only two minutes left, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish what I have to say.
First, I shall invite those people to study the activities of the Government Departments in Northern Ireland, rather in the manner in which the Select Committees do here, although it will not be the same thing. Secondly, I shall invite them to consider legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South asked me whether it would be only Orders in Council. That would be my intention.

1125
Thirdly, I would invite them to consider what arrangements for the future governance of the Province would command general support. That is where the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends can do their persuading, if they wish.
Those are three useful functions not currently being performed by a body such as the proposed council. Therefore, it is my intention to proceed along those lines, although I shall consult hon. Members from Northern Ireland and the Opposition, at the right hon. Member's request.
The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke of the difficulties which his constituents suffer and asked whether the Government would take further steps to rid his constituents and others in Northern Ireland of the scourge of terrorism. We remain determined to do that. However, as I said earlier, we remain determined to do it by using the law. We are seeking to return to a legal system, with which we are all familiar, in due course to get rid of the Acts which we are considering tonight. We want to use the law in order to make people obey the law. We are determined to do that, but we shall not go outside the law because we do not believe that, in the end, that will bring the peace which the hon. Member wants for his constituents.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes, 137 Noes, 28.

Division NO. 245]

[11.43 pm

AYES

Alison, Michael

Cranborne, Viscount

Ancram, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Dover, Denshore

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Dunlop, John

Beith, A. J.

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Best, Keith

Eggar, Tim

Bevan, David Gilroy

Elliott, Sir William

Biggs-Davison, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Blackburn, John

Farr, John

Blaker, Peter

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Andrew

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bradford, Rev R.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Goodhart, Philip

Brinton, Tim

Goodlad, Alastair

Brittan, Leon

Gow, Ian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Brotherton, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Hannam, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hawksley, Warren

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Heddle, John

Buck, Antony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Butler, Hon Adam

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Chapman, Sydney

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kilfedder, James A.

Cope, John

Knox, David

Costain, Sir Albert

Lawrence, Ivan

1126

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Silvester, Fred

Loveridge, John

Speed, Keith

Lyell, Nicholas

Speller, Tony

MacGregor, John

Sproat, Iain

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Squire, Robin

Major, John

Stainton, Keith

Marlow, Tony

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stevens, Martin

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moate, Roger

Thompson, Donald

Molyneaux, James

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Trippier, David

Murphy, Christopher

Viggers, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, David

Needham, Richard

Wakeham,John

Nelson, Anthony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Neubert, Michael

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Cranley

Ward, John

Osborn, John

Watson, John

Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Wells, Bowen

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wheeler, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wickenden, Keith

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Wilkinson, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Winterton, Nicholas

Raison, Timothy

Wolfson, Mark

Renton, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Rossi, Hugh

Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

NOES

Alton, David

Meacher, Michael

Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Race, Reg

Canavan, Dennis

Richardson, Jo

Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Cryer, Bob

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Dixon, Donald

Skinner, Dennis

Dobson, Frank

Stallard, A. W.

Eastham, Ken

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Fitt, Gerard

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Flannery, Martin

Welsh, Michael

Heffer, Eric S.

Howells, Geraint

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Mr. Clive Soley and

Lamond, James

Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (Social Survey Division)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
12.4 am
Mr. Alfred Morris: The White Paper on the future of the Government Statistical Service, published on 29 April, which was inspired by the report made to the Prime Minister by Sir Derek Rayner, has caused very serious and widespread concern. It is the concern not only of the 2,500 civil servants whose jobs are put in jeopardy by this and earlier reviews but of distinguished academics and statisticians, among many others.
What the White Paper suggests is a fundamental shift in attitude towards research in general and social surveys in particular. If the Government's plans, as set out in the White Paper, are carried into effect, drastic cuts will be made in surveys covering social, industrial and economic data. Sir Claus Moser, a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, who must know more about the value of statistics than Sir Derek Rayner does about loss leaders, has delivered a biting attack on the Government's plans. From the tone of the Rayner exercise, said Sir Claus:
"…one would think that judging the need for statistics was like judging the need for paper clips."
Sir Claus, as well as being a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, was head of the Government Statistical Service from 1967 to 1978. In his attack on the Government's plans he went on to say that the Rayner review looked at administrative costs but ignored the value of information and the vital need to educate Ministers, senior civil servants, industrialists and others to make better use of statistics in making more rational decisions. One might add the needs of Parliament and Select Committees to Sir Claus Moser's list, but Parliament is mentioned only twice in the White Paper.
The director of the Central Statistical Office, who is also head of the Government Statistical Service, said that one of the objectives of his office was
"…to make sure that as far as possible Parliament and the public have ready access to the same statistical information as is available to Ministers."
The Rayner team commented that the director's statement of objectives was too open-ended and needed sharp emphasis on value for money.
The attitude of the DHSS Rayner team to the needs of Parliament was that
"Members of Parliament will have to be referred repeatedly to published sources. Select Committees and Royal Commissions may have to obtain their own information, with their own budgets for the purpose if the information is not already available within the Department…the Public Accounts Committee may have to be prepared to accept that staff and resources are not available to provide certain information."
Select Committees are, of course, given the power to send for "persons, papers and records", and the idea that Departments are entitled to send the bill in afterwards for work carried out is totally alien to the traditional view of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
The White Paper explicitly says that statistics should be reduced to what the Government believe they themselves need, and that alone. In totally rejecting that approach Sir Claus Moser said that he found it disturbing that the Government's criterion was simply that of what they
1128
needed when, through the supply of statistics, they had a duty to inform the public. He emphasised also that it was short-sighted to cut data checking, especially in the light of serious past errors, such as the under-recording of
exports.
The White Paper envisages an overall cut of 25 per cent. in the Government Statistical Services, but in the case of the important social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys the cut in staff and resources could be one of 40 per cent.
For the sake of £750,000 to £1 million, which is much
less than a drop in the bucket of total Government expenditure, a service of outstanding value is faced not just with upheaval but with possible destruction. For that sum, the Government are prepared to reduce essential data on housing and education, and to lower the quality of family expenditure data which the Rayner review itself recognised may be made less reliable under its proposals. In turn, that will damage the interests—by concealing their problems and needs—of some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society.
Professor Peter Townsend, the author of "Poverty in the United Kingdom", who knows more about the study of poverty than Sir Derek Rayner knows even about window dressing, argues that the Government's proposed cuts constitute nothing less than a restriction of democracy. He sees the Government's proposals as an attempt to
"…divert, contain and reduce criticisms of Government policies and, in particular, to restrict the flow of information that is required for the free discussion of industrial, economic and social conditions in Britain."
That is a deeply serious charge and one that the Minister must not try to sweep under the carpet in replying to this debate tonight. There has been little, if any, consultation with outside bodies such as the NHS, the TUC, the CBI, local authorities and other bodies including pressure groups. These bodies are users of statistics and are involved in providing statistics. Surely they should be
consulted.
Final decisions on the future of the social survey division have still to be made. Moreover, I appreciate that a Government statistical service working party is now considering the division's future and has been asked to report by October. The debate is, therefore, a timely opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the dangers of the Rayner proposals. As the Minister will know, the proposals were subjected to damning criticisms at a recent meeting of the Royal Statistics Society. There were over 300 participants at the meeting and the RSS has now set up a working party to reply to the Rayner proposals. The working party's report will clearly be an important statement and I trust that the Minister will agree with me tonight that no irreversible decision should be taken about the social survey division's future until he has had an opportunity to study the report. Meanwhile, the Minister should reflect on the statement made on 10 June by Professor Harvey Goldstein, chairman of the statistics committee of the Social Science Research Council, that the Rayner proposals
"would lead to a general deterioration of information and to worse decisions in Whitehall."
The Rayner proposals are couched in the jargon of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The public are assured that their purpose is to discriminate between what is essential and non-essential, to secure value for money and to end "bureaucratic nonsense" which, we are told, can all be done without detracting from the quality of work

1129
carried out by the Government statistical service. These apparently disinterested and commendable aims obscure the facts about the extent and distribution of the proposed cuts. At the same time, they discourage examination of the flawed logic which has made the social survey division a target for special attack.
The Rayner team regards even the uses made of the general household survey as "desirable rather than essential", which means that, in their view, fundamental social questions on which it casts light are something with which Whitehall decision-makers need not necessarily be concerned. As we have seen, it is also inherent in the Rayner philosophy that information should be collected not for the information of Parliament, or for the public at large, but only for the purposes of the Government. This again is a matter of considerable importance. Indeed, it begs the whole question about the role of information services in a democratic society.
It has long been accepted that information paid for at public expense should be disseminated as widely as possible. Now it is proposed that such information should be available only to substantiate preconceived political objectives. That would, of course, very much strengthen executive government vis-a-vis Parliament and the public at large and is not a change that should be casually approved. The White Paper states:
"There is no more reason for Government to act as universal provider in the statistical field than in any other".
The implication here, as one commentator has already said, is that anyone seeking data paid for out of public funds is a kind of statistical services scrounger.
In undertaking its work, the social survey division provides national coverage as well as taking account of regional disparities, and the Scottish Rayner team points out in its report that if the size of national samples is drastically reduced, reliable regional figures can no longer be derived from the data. Rayner's critics point out that official statisticians are much more likely to be granted access to otherwise confidential data, such as health records, than private sector research staff. Nor is the limited scope of small-scale research its only disadvantage. The OPCS enjoys facilities for the recording, storage and retrieval of information unparalleled elsewhere and has, in addition, a highly skilled and experienced staff of unimpeachable reputation. The facilities and staff of the OPCS comprise a most valuable asset not only to Whitehall but to all of us, and for the Government to put some of its major functions at risk is grossly irresponsible.
The effect of the proposals in the White Paper on the dissemination of statistics is likely to be a restriction of access to information, standards will inevitably fall and, above all, sensible planning will be virtually impossible. Not content with narrowing the breadth and scope of social research, the White Paper recommends the shrinking of sample bases of surveys and the lowering of the quality of analysis. This could mean that minority groups no longer showed up in the continuous surveys, such as the family expenditure and general household surveys. In consequence, the results of these surveys would become less comprehensive and useful. Indeed, this cannot fail to occur unless positive steps are taken to maintain the representativeness of survey work.
OPCS staff, for their part—and there are many who share their view—do not feel that the Rayner review gave serious consideration to these issues. The continuous surveys, which are a major part of the social survey
1130
division's work, would, if Rayner's proposals go ahead, cease to be an accurate reflection of the social and economic characteristics of the population. Fundamental information about spending patterns will be affected. Yet this information forms the essential basis of the retail price index, and the Rayner report admits that the family expenditure survey data may be less reliable under its proposals. Essential information on employment, attitudes to work and use of public services will also be lacking because of the narrowing of the basis of inquiry. The Equal Opportunities Commission is known to be concerned that its law enforcement functions, and also its general duty to promote equality of opportunity, will be hindered if reductions in sample size—for instance, of the GHS—are implemented, because detailed statistics will become less reliable and less frequent. So we are also talking about the future of equal opportunities in this debate. The EOC is dependent on good official statistics for monitoring the position of women and does not have a large research budget from which it can arrange its own data collection.
What is also clear is that ad hoc surveys will suffer most of all from the proposed cuts. The social survey division has conducted ad hoc surveys on virtually every aspect of contemporary society, from health and welfare to employment and leisure. Recent work has included the monitoring of the TOPS scheme for the Manpower Services Commission, a survey of drinking habits and a report on the problems of one-parent families for the Finer committee. A survey of public attitudes to the deaf will help to break down the barriers which, both through accident and design, prevent deaf people from full participation in the life of their community. Also, in the field of disability, the survey carried out in the late 1960s by Amelia Harris for the OPCS on "The Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain" has been a standard work of reference on the characteristics and requirements of disabled people.
This monumental work of international renown was the first attempt to draw together information pertaining to all aspects of handicap: employment, housing, health and leisure. It is a detailed and comprehensive guide for planners to the accurate and economic allocation of resources. It has, in fact, been the foundation for the development of benefits and services for the disabled over the past decade. It is, none the less, in urgent need now of updating since the shifting pattern of need requires regular monitoring. Yet if the Rayner proposals are put into effect it is doubtful whether such extensive research will ever be undertaken again. On the contrary, as Valerie Ellis, of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants points out:
"Had Rayner reported in 1966, we might well never have had the Amelia Harris Survey at all".
The fact that the social survey division is an integral part of the Government machine ensures continuous contact between the survey staff and policy-makers within client departments. The social survey division is therefore in a much better position to understand the needs of departments, to evaluate and anticipate long-term developments, and to ensure that social survey work is practical and relevant, than private survey agencies could possibly be.
The Rayner report envisages that the social survey division will continue its advisory role, but it is difficult to see how this function can be performed adequately if the responsibility for the overall conduct of surveys is taken

1131
away from it. The suggested privatisation of research, leading to the "contracting out" of surveys to external agencies deemed to be equally effective, is unsatisfactory on grounds other than narrow criteria of technical efficiency. Quality must be seen as a continuing, not a one-off, need, for, as the OPCS points out:
"The highest standards are essential in policy-related research, when a mistaken decision can waste resources worth many hundreds of times the cost of providing information in the first place".
The intention of financing future work out of the existing budgets of client Departments, rather than from the central budget of the OPCS, will force Departments to be highly selective about the research that they undertake if they are to maintain anything near existing standards. In the case of Departments without substantial research budgets of their own, there will be no access to specialised information at all.
The only conclusion one can draw from the favour shown by the Government for the Rayner proposals is that they want deliberately to distance themselves from the effects of their policies on people generally. Indeed, the Rayner team themselves conceded that cuts affecting the work of the general household survey
"would be likely to create an outcry that the Government does not want to know about the well-being of its citizens."
That may seem a trivial matter to some, but most people will regard the Government's unconcern for the social effects of their policies as both inexcusable and indefensible. Many will see the Government's attitude as being based more on paranoia than concern with true economy and real efficiency. Quite clearly, it also attacks the basis of democracy since every Government should be prepared to answer informed criticism. In future, criticism may have to be based on guesswork rather than evidence and debates on rancour instead of rational discussion.
There is no significant financial benefit to be had from the Rayner proposals. Indeed, the savings in central Government expenditure may be offset by increased expenditure on data collection in other parts of the public sector. To claim that the cause of efficiency will be better served by them is grotesquely misleading. The sacrificing of essential research leads, not to streamlined efficiency, but to the very "bureaucratic nonsense" which Rayner purports to oppose. It is, of course, always likely that bad decisions will be made on the basis of the best information, but it can be nothing more than luck if the reverse happens. Yet it is a "pot luck" approach on which the Government now want to rely for future policy making. Freedom of information also has to be considered in this context. A free and just society cannot do without adequate survey and research facilities. Nor can it afford to allow information to be hidden from the public through fear that it might stimulate pressure for social change.
In a recent letter to the press about the threat now posed to the social survey division, it was stated that for the Government to cripple the division's work would be an act of official vandalism. That is a very widely held view among people who know what the social survey division has achieved. The Government will expose themselves to severe censure if they fail to respond positively to the criticisms that are being made of their proposals, and I hope that the Minister will show in his reply tonight that he recognises the force and validity of these criticisms.
1132
To be kind to him, some would put it to the Minister that he knows full well that Sir Claus Moser, Professors Townsend and Goldstein, Valerie Ellis of the IPCS and all the Government's other well-informed critics are right, but that he dare not gainsay the findings of a report, however damaging, from a man who was personally appointed to his task by the Prime Minister. Should that be his feeling, let the Minister reflect on the frankness and courage of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who said last Saturday, in a reference to the Prime Minister's other economic adviser:
"Why pay Professor Walters £50,000 a year when you can buy his ruddy pamphlets for 25 pence?"
Let the Minister speak with the same frankness and courage tonight, even if it means criticising the Prime Minister's other poodle.
12.23 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). In my reply, I hope to give some assurances in those areas where I think that he is mistaken. I also hope to counter some of his more extravagant claims, namely, that our proposals are based on paranoia, or a wish to gag democracy and obstruct social change—or, indeed, that the Government have any wish to attack the foundations of democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman's concern for the disabled is well known and his observations about the relationship between social research and policy must, of course, command respect. I shall have something to say about that in a few moments, but first I want to remind the House of what Sir Derek Rayner actually proposed, and what the White Paper on Government statistical services has actually had to say about the work of the social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.
In January 1980 the Minister for the Civil Service asked Sir Derek Rayner to oversee a review of the statistical services throughout Government. The aim of the review was to examine critically the statistical services available to each Minister, in order to establish what was essential and what less so, to simplify administration, to look for ways of improving efficiency and getting better value for money and to decide on the best arrangements for the efficient future management of statistical work. The social survey division of the OPCS was included in the review.
During the course of 1980 a report on the statistical services in each Department was submitted to the Minister concerned and Sir Derek Rayner presented his report on the interdepartmental aspects of the review to the Prime Minister in December 1980. All these reports are available in the Library of the House and more generally. Sir Derek's report comprised some 30 recommendations, of which two related specifically to the social survey division—one related to the continuous surveys and the other to the ad hoc surveys. It appears to the right hon. Gentleman that the report has more to say about costs than benefits, but I think that this is largely because costs can be measured explicitly, whereas the value of statistics is more often a matter for judgment. But the Government are resolved to cut out activities where there is insufficient benefit for the costs incurred.

1133
It is not correct to say that there was no consultation with outside bodies. Sir Derek Rayner's report lists the names of bodies consulted, including the CBI, the TUC and the Organisation of Professional Users of Statistics.
I turn to the recommendation affecting the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and deal first with the continuous surveys. The social survey division carries out three continuous multi-purpose surveys—the family expenditure survey, the general household survey and the international passenger survey. In addition, the division pays a market research firm to carry out the national food survey, so the principle of contracting oil: to the private sector already exists and is accepted by OPCS.
Sir Derek recognised the usefulness of these surveys but suggested that there was scope for economies without damaging the essential needs of government. The Government have accepted these recommendations in principle, and the White Paper published by the Lord President of the Council reported that savings of about 25 per cent. could be made in the continuous surveys in the following ways.
First, the general household survey sample will be reduced, and field and clerical procedures will be considerably slimmed down. These changes will start from 1982. Secondly, subject to a final check of feasibility, the family expenditure survey will be merged with the national food survey. A decision will be taken in the near future. Thirdly, three options for matching the international passenger survey to essential Government needs are being considered. The aim is to save at least 25 per cent. of the current costs. Again, a decision will be made shortly.
The important point to register is that these three valuable continuous multi-purpose surveys are to remain; they are not to be abolished, but the Government believe that they can be run at lower cost and still meet essential needs. Judging from some of the comment in the press, one might think that Sir Derek had recommended that these surveys should be abolished, but this is not the case. They are to continue, but at lower cost.
So much for the continuous surveys. It is the proposals for ad hoc surveys that have aroused, if anything, greater concern. An ad hoc survey is a one-off project to fill a particular gap in information. The social survey division provides an ad hoc capability as an allied service to other Departments. That means that it pays for the full cost of these surveys from its own Vote, but customer Departments have, of course, to justify the expenditure.
There is no doubt that many important and valuable ad hoc surveys have been carried out over the years. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them, and the list could be added to. All these are in important areas, where the Government need reliable information.
Sir Derek Rayner's report cast some doubt on the need for so many ad hoc surveys as the present social survey division capacity provides. In particular, he thought that greater use could be made of the continuous surveys to avoid the need for some ad hoc surveys. Moreover, he argued that there was a well-developed survey capability in the private sector and that it would usually be cheaper to use this than employ the social survey division of the OPCS. Furthermore, he maintained that in future Departments ought to pay for surveys directly and not have them as an allied service. In the move to a payment system, he suggested, there should be no transfer of funds from the OPCS to customer Departments. Consequently,
1134
his recommendation for ad hoc surveys was that the aim should be to contract work out where private sector costs were less than those of the public service and that Departments should in future pay for surveys out of existing research funds.
These were far-reaching recommendations. Sir Derek estimated that if the OPCS concentrated on the continuous surveys, carried out a handful of ad hoc surveys and provided advice to Departments on survey methods and management, there would be a saving of up to 100 posts, and a further £1½ million if there were no transfer of funds.
The White Paper issued by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council stated that the Government had called for a further review of the commissioning of ad hoc surveys to make greater use of the private sector where this could do the work as effectively as and at lower cost than the public service. This review has now started, and it is hoped that there will be proposals for Ministers to consider in the autumn. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought that of course Ministers will not take final decisions before we have the working party's report.
There are a number of practical problems to be examined in the meantime, such as how to compare public and private sector costs, how to compare quality and so on. In the course of this review there will be the opportunity to consult widely outside Government circles and to assess the experience of other countries. The Secretary of State has agreed to consult the Civil Service unions before final decisions are taken.
I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I can make some general remarks about the Government's objectives. It is not the Government's intention to do without the survey information necessary for planning the future of social services or for monitoring the effects of social policy. However, we believe that decisions on whether to conduct particular surveys should be taken in full knowledge of the cost of alternative ways of meeting requirements. Repayment puts the customer Department in a better relationship with the contractor and allows the customer to choose the most cost-effective contractor. This may not mean always selecting the lowest tender, for the quality of survey results is important. The aim has to be to get the best value for money. Many think that that will be best achieved by preserving a strong ad hoc survey capability in the social survey division—and that is a possible outcome. But it would be quite wrong, in my view, for the social survey division to be exempted from examination at a time when the need for, and the cost effectiveness of, so many parts of the public service is being questioned. In making their examination the Government will pay close attention to the quality of service required and we shall balance this against the cost.
One important point made in Sir Derek Rayner's report is that the social survey division should continue to act as a central co-ordinating body for Government survey research and provide a technical and managerial advisory service as required by Departments, and it is asserted that Departments should consult it about surveys before undertaking or contracting work within its competence. This emphasises the high regard that is held for the technical competence of the social survey division. If Departments take its advice more frequently in the future than they have in the past, there could well be increased value for money from surveys contracted out to the private sector.

1135
It is significant, therefore, that Sir Derek Rayner's report accepts that all the present functions of the social survey division should remain intact but that the size should be questioned. The question is not "Should there be a social survey division?", or even, "Should it do ad hoc surveys?". The question is "How big an ad hoc capability do the Government need within the public service?"
Even if it is concluded that this capability should be smaller than at present, it will be possible, as it is now, to contract surveys to the private sector to meet additional needs. The division should, for example, have the capacity to handle any new major survey of the handicapped and impaired such as that carried out by Miss Amelia Harris in 1969.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member that Sir Derek Rayner's proposals, and the decisions the Government have so far taken on them, weaken in any way the democratic basis upon which knowledge of the people and of their behaviour and attitudes is obtained through social surveys and made available widely in publications. That has been a feature of the process of government in this country for the past 40 years and will continue. The public service has grown tremendously in the past 20 years and the statistical services with it. It is right to take stock of all aspects of that growth to see whether they continue to be justified.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister has little time. I specifically mentioned the Equal Opportunities Commission and the view of the Rayner team. Will the Minister comment on that?
Sir George Young: I said that when the working party was preparing its final report there would be an opportunity for consultations and discussions. If the Equal Opportunities Commission, or any other body, has anxieties, it should accept the offer and make its views known quickly.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the Government's intentions in this matter. There is no intention of doing without information that is needed to plan for the future of social services or to monitor present policies. There is no intention to disband entirely the services at present provided by the social survey division. It does not face destruction, as the hon. Gentleman implied.
However, changes are being considered in the commissioning of surveys, and the need for surveys will be increasingly examined to ensure that only essential work is undertaken and that it is done in the most cost-effective way. This may mean that the ad hoc survey capability of Government is reduced and that it makes do with less than before. That is entirely appropriate at a time when the need to reduce public expenditure is so great.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Divorce Laws (Reform)
  Divorce Laws (Reform)
  Fakenham County Court
  Fakenham County Court
TRADE
  Insolvency (Cork Report)
  Insolvency (Cork Report)
  K Shoes Ltd and Workington Co-operative
  K Shoes Ltd and Workington Co-operative
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
CIVIL SERVICE
  Secondments
  Secondments
  Pay
  Pay
ENERGY
  Coal Deposits
  Coal Deposits
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  National Nuclear Corporation
  National Nuclear Corporation
HOUSE OF COMMONS AND EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
WALES
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Water Equalisation Act
  Water Equalisation Act
  Water
  Water
  Water Authority Officers (Mileage Allowances)
  Water Authority Officers (Mileage Allowances)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Buckingham Palace (Security)
  Buckingham Palace (Security)
  Research Officers
  Research Officers
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Policy Programme (Achievement)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Register
  Unemployment Register
  Weekly Wage Rates
  Weekly Wage Rates
  Warrington (Social Fund Assistance)
  Warrington (Social Fund Assistance)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Grazing Land
  Grazing Land
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Grants
  University Grants
  European University Institute
  European University Institute
INDUSTRY
  Overseas Companies (United Kingdom Investment)
  Overseas Companies (United Kingdom Investment)
  Business Statistics Office, Newport
  Business Statistics Office, Newport
  Warrington (European Community Assistance)
  Warrington (European Community Assistance)
  Schools (Computers)
  Schools (Computers)
  High Alloy Steels
  High Alloy Steels
PRIME MINISTER
  Nationalised Industries (Private Capital)
  Nationalised Industries (Private Capital)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Small Businesses (Advisory Services)
  Small Businesses (Advisory Services)
  Northampton
  Northampton
  Handicapped Children (Equipment)
  Handicapped Children (Equipment)
  London and Northern Ireland (Government Aid)
  London and Northern Ireland (Government Aid)
  Merseyside (Government Aid)
  Merseyside (Government Aid)
  Mexico Summit Meeting
  Mexico Summit Meeting
  Developing Countries (Assistance)
  Developing Countries (Assistance)
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Rent Rebates (Pensioners)
  Rent Rebates (Pensioners)
  First-time Buyers
  First-time Buyers
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Account Arrears)
  Gas and Electricity Boards (Account Arrears)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Housing (Disabled Persons)
  Enterprise Zone (Liverpool)
  Enterprise Zone (Liverpool)
  Liverpool Urban Development Corporation
  Liverpool Urban Development Corporation
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  International Conference Centre (Broad Sanctuary)
  International Conference Centre (Broad Sanctuary)
  Local Authorities (Annual Reports)
  Local Authorities (Annual Reports)
  Royal Wedding
  Royal Wedding
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
TRANSPORT
  Chile (Ministerial Visit)
  Chile (Ministerial Visit)
  British Railways Engineering Ltd.
  British Railways Engineering Ltd.
SCOTLAND
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses
  Intervention Stores
  Intervention Stores
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Numbers)
  Tuberculosis (Dundee)
  Tuberculosis (Dundee)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Air Rifles and Pistols (Prosecutions)
  Air Rifles and Pistols (Prosecutions)
  Rates
  Rates
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Births and Abortions
  Births and Abortions
  Fuel Consumption (Payment)
  Fuel Consumption (Payment)
  East Aberdeenshire (Redundancies and Short-time Working)
  East Aberdeenshire (Redundancies and Short-time Working)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prisoners (Release)
  Prisoners (Release)
  Civil Servants (Unauthorised Absences)
  Civil Servants (Unauthorised Absences)
  Escaped Prisoners
  Escaped Prisoners
  Plastic Bullets (Injured Persons)
  Plastic Bullets (Injured Persons)
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Scottish Islands (Petrol and Diesel Fuel)
  Scottish Islands (Petrol and Diesel Fuel)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Economic Improvement
  Economic Improvement
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Economic Initiatives
  Economic Initiatives
  Profit-Sharing Schemes
  Profit-Sharing Schemes
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Spare Capacity
  Spare Capacity
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  National Insurance Surcharge
  National Insurance Surcharge
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  European Economic Community (Budget)
  European Economic Community (Budget)
  Royal Wedding Crowns
  Royal Wedding Crowns
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Public Sector Pay Increases
  Public Sector Pay Increases
  Small Businesses (Tax Incentives)
  Small Businesses (Tax Incentives)
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Government Spending (Index-Linking)
  Government Spending (Index-Linking)
  TUC and CBI
  TUC and CBI
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Income Tax (National Insurance Contributions)
  Income Tax (National Insurance Contributions)
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Job Creation and Investment (West Yorkshire)
  Job Creation and Investment (West Yorkshire)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Savings Bond
  Savings Bond
  District Nurses (Car Expenses)
  District Nurses (Car Expenses)
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Alcohol (Revenue Duty)
  Alcohol (Revenue Duty)
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  National Insurance (Self-employed persons)
  National Insurance (Self-employed persons)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Sickness and Industrial Injury
  Sickness and Industrial Injury
  Waiting List (Canterbury and Thanet)
  Waiting List (Canterbury and Thanet)
  Maternity and Neonatal Services
  Maternity and Neonatal Services
  Paramedical and Therapist Staff
  Paramedical and Therapist Staff
  Oil Rigs (Census Survey)
  Oil Rigs (Census Survey)
  Pharmaceutical Services (Costs)
  Pharmaceutical Services (Costs)
  Civil Service Dispute
  Civil Service Dispute
  Birth Certificates
  Birth Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Divorced Women (Pensions)
  Divorced Women (Pensions)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Birth Rates
  Birth Rates
  Overseas Visitors and Students(Medical charges)
  Overseas Visitors and Students(Medical charges)
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Royal Navy (Personnel)
  Royal Navy (Personnel)
  Ten Tors Expedition
  Ten Tors Expedition
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Royal Navy (Training)
  Royal Navy (Training)
  Buccaneer
  Buccaneer
  Mine Counter Measures Ships
  Mine Counter Measures Ships
  HMS "Bristol"
  HMS "Bristol"
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines (Rosyth)
  Nuclear Submarines (Rosyth)
  Dockyards and Naval Bases
  Dockyards and Naval Bases
  Personnel (Remuneration)
  Personnel (Remuneration)
  Radioactive Isotype (Rosyth)
  Radioactive Isotype (Rosyth)
  Chevaline
  Chevaline
  Royal Navy (Reduction)
  Royal Navy (Reduction)
  Non-industrial Civilian Staff
  Non-industrial Civilian Staff
  Coastal Defence Craft (Hong Kong)
  Coastal Defence Craft (Hong Kong)
  Sting Ray
  Sting Ray
  Portsmouth Dockyard
  Portsmouth Dockyard
  HMS "Hermes"
  HMS "Hermes"
  Ship Refits
  Ship Refits
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Civil Defence: Progress
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satified with the progress towards civil defence since the appointment of a co-ordinator at the end of last year and the more recent Home Office memoranda on the subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, considerable progress has been made since the announcement on the home defence review by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 7th August 1980. The effort is continuing and much remains to be done. Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor was appointed as the coordinator of civil defence voluntary effort, an aspect of our planning to which Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance. He is making good progress with his review of what is required and will be issuing further guidance to local authorities in the near future.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply? May I ask him two questions: What steps are the Government taking to counter the misleading statements being issued by the CND and kindred organisations working against home defence? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that local authorities fulfil their home defence obligations? For example, where they have decided not to continue with home defence planning or where, more money having been made available by the Home Office, cuts are being imposed by other departments.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, regarding the first point that the noble Lord put to me about those who do not believe in the need for civil defence, the Government have taken practical steps. We have made increased finance available. In publishing the booklet Protect and Survive, we have made the general public more aware of what they can do to help themselves. We are setting in hand the modernisation of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, an acceleration of the construction of decentralised headquarters and the expansion of training facilities at the Home Defence College. All those things and many more we are doing as matters of practical steps. On the matter of encouraging and keeping in close touch with local authorities, another circular was sent out to local authorities on 20th March this year.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are grateful for his language but not for the action of the Government? If he were able to say how many local authorities have plans in their possession and that these plans can be readily implemented, that would remove the apprehensions which exist among the general public. Is he aware that there is no evidence that the public are grateful for what has been done?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord says in expressing his concern about these matters. But one of the most practical things that the Government could do at a time of severe economic cutback was to make available some more money. This is precisely what we have done. Supported by 75 per cent. grant, we have made it clear that the national civil defence expenditure will be increased by about 60 per cent. to £45 million annually by 1983–84.
Lord Renton: My Lords, owing to the important part which volunteers could play and are keen to play in our civil defence arrangements, and owing to the undertaking given about this matter by my noble friend's predecessor in looking after civil defence, Mr. Leon Brittan, as long ago as last autumn, could my noble friend say when we are likely to get the Statement affecting volunteers? Will the matter then be the subject of a Statement in both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot give the exact date when the circular, to which I referred in my original reply, on the important activities of volunteers, will come out. I hope the very fact that the appointment of Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor has been made will indicate to my noble friend who is so closely involved in this work that the Air Marshal will not, as indeed he never has in the past, let the grass grow under his feet.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: Is not scientific opinion increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is no civil defence against nuclear war? Has the noble Lord noted the background paper published this week by the British Medical Association to their inquiry saying that even deep shelters will not protect people from nuclear war? Would it not be much better to concentrate on getting world agreement to end nuclear arms?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a distinction, of course, between protection against nuclear blast and protection against nuclear fall-out. The important efforts which are being made at the present time, both locally and nationally, are particularly geared towards trying to improve our protection against nuclear fallout.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we would all welcome world agreement to remove our apprehensions of the danger of another war? But the difficulty of obtaining world agreement is even more of an obstacle than the provision of civil defence.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not going to improve on what the noble Lord has just said.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am misreading public newspapers since I have been away? I understood—have the Government heard about it?—that the President of the United States has kindly reserved 120,000 beds for Europeans who may be radioactive if we had a nuclear war. Is there any truth in that report?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not aware of any truth in that particular statement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I deny that any statements made by CND are false? May I also ask whether it is the case that there is no effective defence against nuclear war, and either we get rid of the bomb or the bomb will get rid of us?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the defence against nuclear war is to be prepared abroad and to be ready and alert at home.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, could the noble Lord say more about the functions of the co-ordinator? Although the appointment is a very good one, could he say how much authority the co-ordinator has? What precisely does he do? Is he much more than an adviser?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to the circular which was sent out on 20th March, 1981, a copy of which is in the Library numbered ES1/1981. May I add that the important aspect in civil defence is that we do not have a form of inspection. What seemed important above all else was therefore to have a good system of co-ordination. The obvious appointment seemed to be the man who had until a few months ago been at the head of the Home Defence College at Easingwold, near York. That is why the appointment of Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor was made.

Hospital Admission Guidelines
3.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidelines have been given to National Health authorities in order to establish the legal right of an individual to free admission to a hospital for treatment and care.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, the general policy on who may receive free National Health Service hospital treatment is in a memorandum of guidance issued in 1963, with some later letters on the eligibility of European Community nationals.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that apart from the case of Mrs. Tissier reported in the Guardian of 22nd June, I have previously received representations from hospital staffs who found it extremely embarrassing to test doubtful cases vigorously? Secondly, she is aware of the racist undertones behind the Government's drive on alleged doubtful cases? In other words, the colour of a person's skin or doubtful command of English is most likely to arouse suspicion. Finally, what evidence do the Government have of wholesale abuse of the National Health Service to justify their action?
Baroness Young: My Lords, under the present arrangements, where the operation of checks on eligibility has been left very largely to local discretion, there have been a number of incidents reported in the press, and possibly others which have not attracted publicity, in which members of ethnic minorities have been asked to produce their passports merely because they have had foreign names. I do not, for one moment, condone this. I believe our new proposals will reduce that sort of thing. Regarding the other point raised by the noble Lord, which may well have been about complaints of discrimination at St. Stephen's Hospital, I should like to say that inquiries into these cases are still proceeding. I understand that the procedures at that hospital are under review.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that remark, but is she aware that one of the ideals held by those of us involved in the provision of a National Health Service was the parable of the good Samaritan, which now seems to be being abandoned? Further, in view of the fact that the Government are considering imposing charges on people from abroad, would they now drop these proposals which are causing so much irritation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in the first place, the operation of what has been called "the good Samaritan treatment" is still in force. In the second place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made it clear last week that after this period of consultation on his new proposals about charging those who are not resident for the National Health Service, he will not lay regulations until November, when there will have been an opportunity to consider the evidence and the views of the working party who will be looking at the detail of how the scheme will work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the Secretary of State announced the setting up of the working party to review the charging of foreigners who have been resident in this country for less than three years, and when he also announced that the introduction of these charges would be deferred, he did not say—did he?—who was going to be on this working party and how interested persons could make representations. Would the noble Baroness circulate in the Official Report or have published in some other form information which will enable community relation officers, community health councils, and so on, to provide advice to the Government in good time, so that a further deferment of the Government's plans may not be necessary?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm now that the working party will be under a departmental chairman and will consist mainly of NHS representatives of various disciplines. We shall also invite the medical profession, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to participate.

The Queen's Flight
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now consider modernising the fleet of aircraft of the Queen's Flight in conjunction with the needs of RAF Transport Command.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place on 7th April 1981, she recently reviewed with the Ministers concerned the possibility of buying new aircraft for the Queen's Flight, but reluctantly came to the conclusion that re-equipment should be deferred for the time being.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, is he aware that this is a disappointing answer for those who are interested in British aviation when one sees the almost geriatric age of some of this highly prestigious fleet? Could my noble friend consider whether, if the Ministry of Defence are not able to provide the funding, it might be shared among other Government departments, in view of the responsibilities which the Queen's Flight carries out so splendidly each year?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting suggestion. However, although the Ministry of Defence's problems may have been highlighted recently, I think that whatever department was funding the Queen's Flight would have come to the same conclusion, as this is, of course, a Government conclusion.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while there is immense and proper pride in serving in the Queen's Flight, the fact is that that name hides the fact that the aircraft are used for a wide number of people for whom time is important? Would the noble Earl say whether he agrees that it will be quite impossible for us to pretend to be a high-technology nation if we have these leaders of our country flying around in out-of-date aircraft?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it may be highly desirable on several grounds to replace the Andovers of the Queen's Flight, but they have an excellent safety record and many years of useful life ahead of them. In view of the many other pressing demands on the defence budget, the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight has, with reluctance, had to be deferred.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what he means by "for the time being"? Does he appreciate that, as has been suggested by the noble Lord opposite, it is the worst possible public relations for the British aerospace industry to have both the Sovereign and her Ministers using aircraft so elderly that no other leading person in the world uses them?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend would not use one of these aircraft—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords,—
The Earl of Avon: I should be perfectly happy to use one myself. My noble friend asked me about "for the time being". My noble friend is well aware that we have just had a defence review, which we are to debate in a week's time. Therefore this will have to wait until the next review. So far as his public relations comment is concerned, I shall certainly bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that helicopters of the Queen's Flight are unable to fly when icing conditions are present—that is to say, when it is raining or in cloud when the temperature drops below plus 1—and that that imposes severe constraints on the operation of these helicopters in the winter time? Would he also bear in mind that, now Westland are developing the first all-British helicopter for some years, there may well be opportunities here to replace the old Wessexes with the WG30?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for his advice and I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, my noble friend said that these aircraft have many more years of useful life in them. If I were to put down a Question in, say, 15 years' time, would that be in order?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should be delighted, if I am still on this earth, to answer my noble friend.

Warrington By-Election: Name of Candidate
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the action of a candidate at Warrington by-election to change his name by deed poll to that of another better-known candidate is an acceptable practice or a matter that needs review to avoid public confusion.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on this matter while the by-election to which the noble Lord refers is in progress.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that strict reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are two candidates in Warrington with the same name? Secondly, is he aware of how long it takes to change a name for such an occasion and how long it would take to change the name back again?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I can quite safely say that I do not know the answer to any of the questions my noble friend has asked! My noble friend's original Question of course did not refer, if I may say so to him, to two people having the same name: it referred to somebody changing his name and doing it by deed poll. I think it is important that I should say that I am not aware of a case in which a name has been changed specifically for the purpose of contesting an election.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister two questions about the returning officer's discretion: First, has he got a discretion, where a candidate offers himself in a particular name, to put on to the ballot paper, "Name changed by deed poll, dated so and so, formerly known as Joe Ramsbottom (or whatever it may be)"? Secondly, if a candidate by way of description wishes quite deliberately to misrepresent himself as being the official candidate of a party of which he is not the official candidate, has the returning officer discretion to refuse or accept that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason I originally said that this was not a matter for the Government to comment upon is that if the electorate has been misled in any particular case that would be a matter for the court. That is why I really think it is better not to pursue this in any greater depth at the present time. However, may I just add that, as I understand it, in the event of there being a genuine difficulty about this because people have the same surnames and Christian names, there is on the ballot paper also the provision that there should be addresses given. Although in the final analysis that may not be a very good answer, it does mean that some distinction could be indicated to the electors.
Lord Byers: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not feel that it is appropriate at this moment to answer my noble friend's question on the discretion of the returning officer? It is a very important fact. That is what we want to know.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the returning officer, as I understand it, has no discretion to say that he will not accept the nomination for a candidate if he believes that, in some way, the candidate is not a suitable candidate; in other words, is debarred by law. As I understand it, however—and I must write to the noble Lord if I am wrong in this—there is a discretion so far as the name is concerned.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that there have been instances, particularly in local government, of candidates with the same surnames and Christian names? Is it not also a fact that the matter
292
has been surmounted in those cases by efficient election organisation? Is not the general question raised by the noble Lord one on which it would be unwise to take hasty action, as happened on a recent occasion, and, furthermore, is it not a matter that ought to have the closest review before there is any change in election law?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that probably it would be extremely sensible to look at this matter, if there is a point to look at, after the election is over, but not on a point which is referring to—
Lord Wigoder: No.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord says, "No". I say, "Yes". My view is—and I put this on behalf of the Government—that it would be wholly wrong for the Government to continue to comment on this matter while the election is on.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, may I help the noble Lord on the time factor—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no need to be disturbed about this matter, as the candidate concerned is showing himself to be so inadequate? If he wants to use the dirty tricks department to reflect prestige and ability, why not use a name that would do that, such as "M.Thatcher"? This one does not do that at all.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, one thing I am absolutely certain about is that it is not for the Government to say whether they think that one candidate is either adequate or inadequate.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, may I help the noble Lord on the time factor? If he can find a good solicitor and a quick typist within five minutes of Bush House, the whole thing can be done in half an hour.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord left me when he crossed the border.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the House agree that there might be one subsidiary question from the party concerned? Is the noble Lord aware that when we are sitting over there and they are an unprecedentedly large opposition party over here, we shall show the greatest sympathy and understanding and, I hope, practical help to that party in its plight when one or two dozen "Margaret Thatchers" are down for election in Finchley?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let us end this by saying: Let us see how this election goes.

Belize Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

Business of the House
3.23 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Representation of the People Bill through all its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Soames.)
Viscount Simon: My Lords, before we agree to this Motion, I wonder whether I may say this. I listened with care through the Second Reading of this Bill, and it did not seem to me that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who spoke for the Government, made out a case at all for the urgency of the Bill. That question was put by several speakers from this side of the House, and I thought that when he came to wind up he would deal with that matter; but, unless my memory has failed me, I do not think he did deal with it. He certainly did not leave it in my mind that he had dealt with it. It seems to me extremely important that this House should not pass a Motion of this kind—which, of course, the Government of the day can carry through if they wish—unless we are really satisfied that there is a reason for this urgency. It was agreed on all sides of the House that this was a difficult Bill and that it was a Bill with considerable constitutional implications. I must say that I do not myself remember whether, at the time the Bill was introduced, there was any indication that it was going to be pushed through in this way. I just wonder whether it is right for us to pass this Bill without hearing from the Government what is the real urgency for passing it in one day.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether I may repeat a protest in support of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, which I endeavoured to make on Second Reading. This is a Bill which was described by the Minister of State in another place as certainly a Bill which gives rise to unusually important issues. It came to this House on 26th June, we had the Second Reading on 30th June and we are asked to deal with the Committee stage and all other stages two days later. And this is supposed to be a revising Chamber. I add my protest to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I feel that it is an affront to this House.
Lord Soames: My Lords, it certainly is not designed in any way to be an affront, if I may make that totally clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As to the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, first made about the urgency of the matter, there is, of course, a constituency which does not have a Member. A writ has to be moved. We do not want that constituency to remain unrepresented for any longer than necessary. So, as far as the timing is concerned, the point is specifically that here is a constituency which is unrepresented, awaiting the moving of a writ. On the next point, as to the timing, I take what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. This is not something which the Government like to do—to rush legislation
294
through either House. But I would only point out, perhaps in mitigation, first, that in this instance there is the pressure of time, to which I have referred; and, secondly, that I did not think we were doing things timing-wise that would fail to be understood in your Lordships' House, in so far as in another place, equally, they were rushed and they had two days to go through all the proceedings on the Bill.
That does not mean that it follows that this House should have only two days—of course not. On the other hand, this is a particular Bill the application of which will have more effect upon the other place than upon your Lordships' House. To put it no higher, I think it would be not unreasonable to suggest to your Lordships that we should not require more time to debate it in your Lordships' House than was taken in another place.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the case that many constituencies have gone unrepresented for many months, for all kinds of reasons, in the past? Is there not a maxim, that if one legislates in haste one often repents at leisure?
Lord Soames: My Lords, on the other hand, you could repent very much if you did not legislate quickly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality Bill
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not propose to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper today. I will table another Motion to take account of discussions which are presently being held through the usual channels and upon which I am sure agreement can be reached.

Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I must apologise for this. It had been my intention to move, That the Order for Commitment be discharged, but, unfortunately, there was a technical hitch and I have to move the ordinary Motion in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I understand that no amendments have been put down to the Bill this afternoon. With the agreement of the Committee, therefore, I will now put the Question, That I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed: Report received.

Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Bill
Bill read 3a, and passed.

Social Security Bill
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. There are only two points which I should like to make. First, may I repeat the assurance that when it comes to making good any future shortfalls in pensions which may occur we shall be no less assiduous than we have been on this occasion. Your Lordships will by now be thoroughly familiar with our pledge that we as a Government are fully committed to maintaining the level of pensions and other associated long-term benefits in line with inflation and to improving them beyond that level when economic circumstances permit.
Secondly, I should like to thank those who have supported me on the Bill and who have made contributions to our debates. In particular may I thank my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne and my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Faithfull. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the House has dealt very thoroughly with the Bill and I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time on it. I shall speak only for a moment so that silence does not imply consent to the Bill. There are parts of it which we welcome. We welcome especially Clause 5 which alters the number of days which people have to be away consecutively. We know that this will help in particular people who are on dialysis treatment and other disabled people who need short periods of assistance.
Of course we are glad about the reciprocal agreements entered into with countries outside the United Kingdom. We welcome the tidying up of certain difficulties regarding members of the former Indian and Burmese armed forces. Finally, we very much appreciate the undertaking which we have been given that future shortfalls will be made up—we hope as vigorously and as speedily as last winter's shortfall was deducted. However, we must make it clear that Clause 1 of the Bill is deeply offensive to this side of the House. We felt that this should go on the record.
Lord Banks: My Lords, may I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in making it clear that we on these Benches also dislike Clause 1, which is the only controversial clause in the Bill. We regret that it was not amended during the Committee stage. However, we welcome the repetition of the pledge with regard to long-term benefits and the making good of shortfalls relating to them which the noble Baroness has given this afternoon. We regret, however, that that pledge does not apply to short-term benefits.
Baroness Young: My Lords, may I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their comments. I recognise that we cannot expect all-party support for Clause 1. However, I was very glad that the noble Baroness commented on two provisions which I think have received a great deal of support: first, Clause 5 which provides for a relaxation of the qualifying conditions for incapacity benefit payable to certain haemo-dialysis patients and, secondly, Clause 7 which extends the statutory war pension appeal rights to British officers serving with the former Indian and Burmese armed forces.
I should also like to place on record that I welcome the concern that every effort should be made to ensure that people claim the benefits to which they are entitled, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, drew attention, and also my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Like previous Governments, we have found the disappointing take-up of certain benefits to be a problem which is not susceptible to easy solutions. I can assure the House that we constantly re-examine our publicity arrangements in an attempt to improve the take-up of those benefits in particular. Nevertheless, it is quite right that from time to time your Lordships should remind us of our responsibilities in this area, and I am very pleased that later in the Session the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will be asking a Question about this matter.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

Representation of the People Bill
3.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead: 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 Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disqualification of certain offenders for membership of the House of Commons]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("elsewhere") and insert ("in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or in any British dependent territory").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which I feel confident will have Government support and immediate acceptance. My reason for such confidence is that when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, what was the meaning in the Bill of "elsewhere" during our Second Reading debate he said in effect that it means the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British dependent territory—that it does not mean elsewhere, but that. Since "elsewhere" does not mean "elsewhere" but means the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British dependent territory, I think we should say in the Bill what is meant, not what is not meant. Therefore, I suggest that we substitute

297
for the word "elsewhere" the words of my amendment. I hope with some confidence that the noble Lord will indicate to us the Government's acceptance of this clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There is one fundamental point which I should like to make in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The Bill is not concerned with people who are qualified to stand who are in prisons outside the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland. The Government accept that it would be offensive to public opinion if, say, a British subject who was in prison in a dictatorial country for, let us say, political offences lost the civic privilege in this country of standing for Parliament. Such people would not be returned to serve their sentence in this country or in the Republic of Ireland. This Bill cannot apply to them. That is not the point of the noble Lord's amendment, but I thought it right to make this fundamental point clear at the beginning of the Committee stage. The persons to whom this Bill must apply, in all equity, are those who are convicted and who serve their sentences either here or in the Republic or who are transferred as a matter of routine to British prisons.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, identifies persons who are convicted in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British dependent territories. The noble Lord recognises that it would be anomalous to exclude them, but I must plead guilty, in that when I replied to the noble Lord at the Second Reading my indication of whom it was to which "or elsewhere" applied was not exhaustive. The list which I gave, and which the noble Lord opposite has repeated in moving his amendment, was not comprehensive. The list of persons transferred would also include British subjects sentenced to courts-martial under the provisions of the various Service Acts and transferred after sentence to serve their terms in British prisons. Another effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to exclude prisoners convicted in the Republic of Ireland and serving their sentences in that country. That was, of course, an absolutely basic point put into the Bill in the other place as a result of representations which were made in the House of Commons. The Government believe that it is better to cover all these categories in one form of words rather than specify, and in doing so the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, can be assured that the rights of any persons qualified to stand are not adversely affected.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I am still a little worried at the use of the word "elsewhere". The noble Lord has explained that in this case "elsewhere" does not mean elsewhere, and that what it means is not precisely what I have said it means or what the noble Lord said it means; but that it means something different from what the noble Lord has said it means. If the Government were to say, "We recognise that the word "elsewhere" is altogether too wide and we will institute a form of words other than "elsewhere" which will mean what we say it means", then I would be very happy not to press this amendment. Can the noble Lord say that?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Then I wish to move my amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("A person shall not be disqualified under this section until after the determination by any competent court of appeal in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Isles or in the Republic of Ireland of any appeal entered by any such person within the statutory time limits against any conviction sentence or order as is mentioned above.").
The noble Lord said: I believe it might be for the convenience of the House if instead of repeating speeches which roughly have the same theme, I were to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 and then, if your Lordships seem as though they are with me on this Division of votes, I would seek (for a reason that I am going to give) to ask the House to vote on Amendment No. 4—unless, of course, my pessimism is misplaced and the Government decide to accept one or both of these amendments.
We are dealing with a very important constitutional issue in both amendments. The situation at the present moment in regard to our law is that somebody who is serving a prison sentence, be it for more than 12 months or less than 12 months, can validly stand for election. If he is in fact elected, it is for the other place to decide whether or not it will expel that person. One may have views about the Government's purpose in this, but in dealing with this amendment and with the other amendment one should simply state the Government's purpose and accept it. The purpose of the Government is to alter the present position and to have an enactment that does two things. First, it would revert to the law as it was before 1967, as the Government say. In my view, it does not completely do that, but I am not going to weary your Lordships with that point at this moment. This will therefore see to it that a person who is serving a prison sentence of more than 12 months is disqualified from being elected to the House of Commons. The Government are seeking to do something in addition to that which has never been part of our electoral law at any time; namely, to stop matters at the nomination stage. Therefore, anyone who is serving a sentence of more than 12 months in one of our prisons in the United Kingdom is to be disqualified from standing.
As I have said, I am not going to complicate the argument by dealing with the issue as to whether or not the Government are correct in the view that they hold. At Committee stage I want to assume that the Government view is correct. What I am appealing to your Lordships' House for is that justice should operate to this extent; that in the case of somebody standing for election and also in the case of someone who has been appointed by the people to be a Member of the other place, there shall in both cases at least be provision for the matter to be put right if the person so convicted and sentenced appeals and the appeal is either successful on sentence, in order to reduce the sentence to less than 12 months, or is successful against conviction. There has been such a case, for

299
example, in another place. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to mention names, but there has been a case in recent history where a Member of the other place was convicted and was sentenced for more than 12 months and who, on appeal, was completely acquitted of any suggestion of guilt by the appellant court. Indeed, there were statements made in sheer fairness on that occasion that a conviction should never have taken place.
Amendment No. 2 deals with this question of the nomination stage, and indeed of the election of a person not yet elected to another place. Amendment No. 4 deals with the situation of somebody who has already been elected. If I may say so, there are slightly different arguments which apply in each one of these cases. If I may take Amendment No. 2 first, it deals, as I have said, with the nomination and election stage of a Member of the other place. I should like to express my indebtedness, in that I have used very substantially in these amendments the wording of an amendment that was put forward in the other place by the honourable Member for Grantham, who bears the name of Mr. Douglas Hogg—a name not unknown in your Lordships' House. That amendment was moved in the other place by a distinguished member of the Government. He moved the amendment in regard to the situation of somebody nominated for or first elected to the House of Commons; the question of disqualification at nomination stage or at election stage was what the Member of the other place was dealing with in moving that amendment. The answer that was given to that amendment is of some interest in that it was dealt with by both the Minister of State, Mr. Mayhew, and by the Home Secretary himself, Mr. Whitelaw.
If your Lordships will permit, I should like to quote from the comments made by Mr. Mayhew in the House of Commons on 25th June. He said:
"I turn to the high water mark of the case so attractively made by my honourable friend. In the case of someone who is sitting as a Member of the House, the penalty is more dire".
As I said, I shall be quoting the rest of what he said when I deal with the question of the election to the House of somebody who is already a Member and then will be disqualified. This is what he went on to say:
"One has to acknowledge, facing the situation in Northern Ireland, that it is not possible, while seeking to remedy an abuse of the nature of that with which we are dealing, to serve completely the interests of justice and, at the same time, to serve completely the interests of practicality and the interests of speed".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/81; col. 445.]
I am ending the quotation there and your Lordships will not be surprised if I make the immediate point that this is meant to be legislation not for Northern Ireland and not only to deal with the tragic events of this time in Northern Ireland. This is meant to govern the whole of the United Kingdom and it is meant to be legislation of a permanent nature. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the Minister limits himself to the argument that, because of the urgent situation in Northern Ireland, the interests of justice have to give way to the necessity for speed. One knows what the necessity for speed is because indeed we heard the noble Lord the Leader of the House on that matter when he moved his Motion earlier today.
Later in the proceedings, after a member of the Government had said—and I am paraphrasing—that he supported the Bill on Second Reading with reluctance because he distrusted rushed legislation, the Home Secretary, Mr. Whitelaw, said:
"I reinforce what my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State said. Of course, I shall consider the points that have been made on this issue. It would be possible to make a change in another place, and I shall consider this, but I must do so at this stage without commitment. I undertake to consider what has been said ".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/81; col. 471.]
What had been said by the honourable Member for Grantham in another place was that it was transparently unjust for somebody who was exonerated on appeal to have the disqualification of not being able to stand for the election or, if this disqualification arose between nomination and election, of not being able to be a Member of the House although elected. Therefore the answer depends on the question of speed, and I have ventured to alter the wording of the amendment as tabled by the honourable Member for Grantham because the argument on speed was deployed in this way—and I am paraphrasing what the Minister said. One need not necessarily appeal within the statutory time. One could go on and, if one wanted to delay the matter, petition the court, asking for leave to appeal out of time. So, bearing in mind that an election cannot stand still, I have specially put the words in this amendment that the appeal has to be entered within the statutory time-limit, which is four weeks.
In those circumstances I should have thought that this would be an opportunity such as the Home Secretary himself thought was available—namely, for this place, having considered the matter, to alter the Bill in order to provide this cover of justice to what is otherwise a very severe disqualification clause.
So that your Lordships are not burdened with two speeches of mine on this issue, I promised that I would deal in the same speech with Amendment No. 4, which covers a different situation—namely, that somebody is already sitting as a Member of the House. Let there be no misunderstanding about this—and if I am wrong, I know that with his usual courtesy and his usual firmness the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will correct me. As I understand it, the position before 1967 was that, if you were a Member of the House and you were disqualified, should you be unfortunate enough, or wicked enough, to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months, you were disqualified from sitting and disqualified from voting but, unless another place by resolution expelled you, your seat was not declared void. Therefore, there was no question of your automatically finding yourself disbarred as a Member of another place. I believe that that was the situation.
Under this Bill, which not only seeks to reimpose the situation as it was before 1967, I understand that what will happen to a Member of another place if he is sentenced and is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months, is that he will cease to be a Member of another place. That of course goes very much further and, in going further—and even if I am wrong and it does not go further—it must be a complete and absolute injustice, if an appeal is entered and is successful, if the Member of another place, properly elected

301
by the people, has not the right to resume his seat with the power to sit and the power to vote.
It was conceded at the Committee stage in another place that this was indeed a matter of very hard law, and hard cases were referred to in the argument. Therefore, what I would seek to do now is to quote in full what I was endeavouring to quote before from the speech of the Minister of State in answer to this amendment when it was moved in the other place. He said:
"In the case of someone who is sitting as a Member of the House, the penalty is more dire. He is tipped out of his seat. He is tipped out of his job. It can be said that the consequences affect more people than are affected by the application of the Bill to somebody who is seeking to be nominated or elected. That has to be faced. It is not, however, all one way. The Forfeiture Act 1870 presented exactly that pattern. Disqualification under the 1870 Act, to the extent that it disqualified from sitting and voting in this House and being elected to the House, operated straight away upon conviction ".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/81; col. 445.]
I have ended the quotation and your Lordships will see that certainly in the mind of the Minister of State was the fact that, pre-1967 and taking into account the provisions of the Forfeiture Act, the situation was that there was disqualification from sitting and voting, not an automatic voiding of the seat and not an automatic expulsion from membership of another place.
The last argument that I wish to burden your Lordships with is the rather theoretical argument that has been advanced, which is that the principle of our law is that until you are convicted you are innocent and after you are convicted you are deemed to be guilty. I wonder whether I can ask your Lordships not to be adjudicating upon some strange person, some third party who might be a colleague in another place. I wonder whether any one of us would not feel a sense of the most dreadful injustice if, by some mischance, it happened to us. It has been said before, and instanced only recently: the judges are but human, juries are but human and expert witnesses are but human, and some people have been convicted of the most serious offences and it has been found afterwards that the conviction was completely misplaced. As I said, Nye had an instance of it only over the last week or so.
Suppose it happened to one of us and we were disgraced and sent out from another place, or indeed from this place—although the Forfeiture Act indeed dealt with this House while the present Bill does not, and possibly because it is a Representation of the People Bill one can understand it. But can one imagine the sense of abhorrent injustice if it happened to us—any one of us—and we were completely exonerated on appeal and we had no right to go back to the seat to which we had been properly elected in a democratic assembly by a democratic vote; we had been expelled, we had been disqualified, the seat had been voided, even though on appeal all was well and we were acquitted.
It cannot be argued in the second case that there is such a hardship upon the electors who had appointed that Member, that for some period of time they were unrepresented. Have we so little confidence in our appeal administration as to think that a case of this kind, an appeal of this kind, would not be expedited? Of course it would be. Have we not all experience of constituencies that are not represented for some time,
302
because of illness and other matters? Arrangements are made, quite obviously, for the constituency to be looked after in the meantime.
We are dealing with a matter of great constitutional importance. I beg of your Lordships not to be misled, as I respectfully say the Minister of State was misled, into arguments about what is happening at the present moment in Northern Ireland. This is not a Northern Ireland Bill; it is a United Kingdom Bill. It is a permanent Bill. As was said by the Home Secretary, there could be an opportunity in this place to put this matter right.
Only so that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may know what my intentions are because it is only right that he should, may I say that I believe that the proper way of expressing the opinion of this House, in a Division as against a verbal vote, if I may put it that way, would be to take the case of a Member of another place which is, in my view, the harder case of the two. I therefore would propose, unless the Government can accept this amendment, to divide on Amendment No. 4, but I hope your Lordships will be sufficiently vocal on Amendment No. 2 to make it completely plain that "the Contents have it". I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: If I may—
Lord Hampton: If I may, I wish to speak only quite briefly. I find the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very persuasive and I should support him in the event of a Division. I cannot accept quite everything that he says, but those points may have to be taken up later. It seems to me the Government have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of rushed legislation today, and here is a case of not only rushing legislation but rushing one stage further. The statutory time is four weeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, and when it is a case of a man appealing against forfeiture of nomination for election to another place, or of being disqualified, I cannot see that this is not a reasonable step to take. I would support the noble Lord.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I start by apologising to the noble Lord, who, of course, should have had precedence; I am only sorry that I did not see that he had risen. I apologise to him and to the Committee. We are dealing here with the Representation of the People Bill, and while I fully accept that it is the right of this House, and indeed on occasion I can fully understand that it might be the absolute duty of this House, to play a very strong part over a Bill which deals with election to the House of Commons, nevertheless I suppose we should take into account that this is a Bill which deals solely with election to the House of Commons on which the House of Commons have exercised their vote and their decision. I think it is something that we should take into account.
We have to be realistic. While I listened with great pleasure, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I think we have to be realistic about why this Bill is before this Parliament at this particular time. For us to try to deal with it in a vacuum would, I think, be totally absurd. It is, of course, persuasive to say that normally one would try to wait until all the appeal procedures had been completed, which, of course, goes beyond going to the Court of Appeal;

303
it would include coming to your Lordships' House, to the Judicial Committee. Although that might be expedited it might take a very considerable time. We have to be realistic, in that we have to face the situation in which what happened in the by-election when the late Mr. Sands was duly elected was, in my view, one of the most serious propaganda defeats for this nation.
The desirability of this Bill, I believe, is felt by everybody. It is offensive to the general public, and it must be particularly offensive to those citizens of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, that there should arise a situation where a person can be nominated for election to the British House of Commons who is in the position of a convicted terrorist. The consequences of that situation, for instance in the United States of America and elsewhere, were very grave indeed. I believe that it is right for the Government of the day to take upon itself the duty and the responsibility of seeing that that situation does not arise again, because it was a situation which I believe gravely offended the general public in this country.
The conviction of a person of a crime creates a situation where the press and public speak of a "convicted person"; the person's history is given, which it has not been before. Reflect, if your Lordships would, on the recent cases which have been in the public press. Someone has been convicted, and though an appeal may be pending nevertheless that person is treated as a convicted person. Being treated as a convicted person, none of the laws of contempt apply and he can be called what he is: a convicted murderer, a convicted terrorist. I appreciate from what the noble Lord has said that, of course, there must be conceived the situation whereby on appeal that verdict is reversed and the convicted murderer, the convicted terrorist, then has that conviction quashed. But we have to look to the consequences upon our institutions, and upon this Parliament, which we all serve, if in elections to the House of Commons, where there is the representation of the people, there can be nominated to serve there a person who has been convicted of terrorism or of murder or of any of those serious offences.
While, of course, the noble Lord is right in saying that this Bill deals with the whole of the United Kingdom and is, on the face of it, a permanent Bill, nevertheless we must sec it in the context in which it was introduced into Parliament. We must see it in the context of that situation and of the possibility of it arising again. What are the public to say of a Government and a Parliament which let such a situation arise again?
Therefore, I believe that it is right that we should do that which we set out to do. We set out to do it on conviction because I believe that, if we delayed it for a time and provided for the time when it goes to appeal to the Court of Appeal and then up to your Lordships' House, the objects and purposes of the Bill would be defeated. In my view, this is a Bill in which we must take into account the balance—and I think that there is a balance here—between the public interest and the interest of the individual. I believe that the interests of the public demand and insist that no longer should it be possible for a situation to arise in which a person such as Mr. Sands could be elected to serve in the House
304
of Commons. Therefore, I disagree with the noble Lord and I agree with the Bill as presented by the Government. I feel that we should maintain the clause as it is and reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: Since the time factor has been mentioned, I should just like to say that I am one of those who feel very strongly that normally we should take plenty of time on legislation, because legislation is so difficult. So frequently it has been shown that your Lordships' House, by exercising its powers of revision with great thoroughness and great care, has managed to improve legislation a great deal. But there are other occasions when the public do not expect us to tarry: they expect us to correct something which is plainly wrong. I would suggest that this Bill is one of those occasions. Perhaps that is irrelevant to the amendment moved with his usual clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I should like, therefore, to turn to that matter.
I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, as it has to me, that his two amendments, if accepted, would confer a privilege upon Members of Parliament and people wanting to become candidates for Parliament—a rather strange privilege I concede—which is not available to other convicted people. Other convicted people, even though an appeal is pending and until it has been heard, normally have to remain in prison and cannot enjoy any civil rights such as, for example, voting. They have to live and work in prison. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Sometimes bail is granted pending an appeal, but that is a pretty rare occurrence. Sometimes for reasons of compassion a man may be released for a day from prison, in custody, to get married or even to attend a funeral, but those occasions are very rare. Normally, convicted people, even though they may have a splendid chance of succeeding on appeal, have to stay in prison.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is always so courteous that I am sure he will not mind my intervening. No suggestion was ever made in this amendment or in any speech that I made in support of it that a Member of Parliament or a candidate should be exempt from serving his prison sentence pending appeal. He will be in prison and therefore he will be unable to sit and unable to vote.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord is perfectly right and it is obvious that I have not made myself clear to him nor perhaps to other noble Lords. I am saying that once one has been convicted, and even though an appeal is pending, one is deprived of one's ordinary civil rights which go with liberty. That is what I am saying.
Let me come briefly to my other two points. First, we do know and the noble Lord knows—although I am sure that he has never been guilty of delaying an appeal in any circumstances; it is unthinkable that he could have done so—that appeals get delayed, sometimes intentionally, sometimes inevitably and sometimes accidentally. However, if this amendment is accepted, there will be a very great temptation and a very strong motive for delaying appeal so as to try to hold the person still as a candidate for Parliament or as a Member of Parliament. The uncertainty that could be created by the simple fact that appeals so often are

305
delayed, as my noble friend has suggested, would be surely against the public interest.
There is an even stronger short point that I would wish to make and that is to emphasise that the effect of these amendments would be further to disfranchise thousands of people in a constituency. They would be disfranchised in what I would consider to be an unnecessary and sometimes vain attempt to produce a form of special justice for the Member of Parliament or the candidate concerned, and I do not consider that constituents should be disfranchised in that way. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will oppose the amendment.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I think that, at the time of the 19th century legislation to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred, Members of Parliament were not paid. I wonder whether my noble friend would make it clear whether, in the case where a person has been convicted and is in prison pending an appeal, he would or would not, under my noble friend's amendments, be drawing his parliamentary salary? If he is detained in prison pending appeal obviously he could not attend this House; but would he retain his parliamentary salary pending appeal?
Lord Belstead: Like my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, I acknowledge on behalf of the Government that there is a balance to be weighed in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, certainly made a strong case in terms of justice and equity to the individual that there is a right that the penalty of disqualification from nomination and election to the House of Commons should not be incurred until an appeal within the statutory time limit has been resolved. In saying that, I am endeavouring to speak to the first of the two amendments with which the noble Lord has dealt.
The Government's case is that the possible risk of that feeling of injustice for the individual has to be weighed against injustice to a constituency which, if a Member were elected during an appeal period but was in prison, might go unrepresented for a considerable time. If I may say so, I really do think that my noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right to point out that, under those circumstances, for a period of time which could be of considerable length—even allowing for the fact that in this amendment we are talking about an appeal made in the allowed period—people of a constituency, both those who have voted for the successful candidate and those who have voted against him, will all, in effect, be disenfranchised. The Government believe that the noble Lord's amendment on those grounds is not well-based, but we are also worried because I think that there are anomalies which could be created as a result of the first amendment and which would not necessarily remove the sense of injustice of a particular individual. I should like to refer to these anomalies as they occurred to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, fairly said that the amendment is confined to the statutory period for an appeal. As your Lordships know, there are, quite rightly, extensive rights of appeal in the separate judicial systems operating in the United Kingdom. The statutory period to which the noble Lord referred is not, of course, the only right of appeal enjoyed by
306
any individual. Leave to appeal can be sought in most cases at any time during sentence, but that is not, of course, covered in this amendment. This means that the noble Lord's amendment will not affect all appeals that may be fought or may protect the position of a person who believes that he or she has been wrongly convicted. This amendment would affect only a limited number, and it therefore can scarcely be said that this amendment rests wholly on a matter of principle, because under the amendment some appeals would delay disqualification and some would not.
Reference has, quite understandably, been made to the history of this matter. As I understand it, the position is as follows. The Forfeiture Act 1870 disqualified for election to or sitting and voting in the House of Commons persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment. No exception was made in the various subsequent Acts establishing our appeals procedures for those who had lodged an appeal. Nor does the Representation of the People Act 1969 make any exceptions in respect of the disqualification of a convicted prisoner from voting. As for other forms of disqualification they apply directly, without waiting for any chance of appeal. For instance, if a person is, on the day of nomination or election, a bankrupt or has been convicted of treason or certain electoral offences, his subsequent election would be void. However, I do not base the Government's case against this first amendment solely on the grounds of anomaly or history.
It was my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson who, in his speech, argued that it is essential to approach this Bill not in a theoretical, but in a realistic spirit. We must ask ourselves what would be the practical effect of allowing a period of grace during appeal. After all, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to the prospective loophole in Northern Ireland, with a large number of prisoners there on remand because of the pressures on the courts. I think that this amendment would open a much wider loophole, because it would inject a degree of false uncertainty into the disqualification of prisoners—false uncertainty, because it is the law of the land that once convicted a person is guilty. He or she can be referred to in the press—as my noble and learned friend said—as being a guilty person and is treated in custody as being guilty. It would make the returning officer's job of disqualifying the nomination of prisoners convicted and serving sentences of more than 12 months more difficult, as the returning officer would have to receive information about the appellate position of the prospective candidate.
To put it in absolutely concrete terms, it would enable those who arranged the nomination and election of the late Mr. Sands to have an opportunity to select a recently convicted hunger-striking prisoner who, just at that time, had entered an appeal, however hopeless his appeal might be.
There is, however, the second amendment on which the noble Lord has warned that if the Government cannot meet his case, it would be necessary to divide. This amendment differs in one important respect from the other amendment moved by the noble Lord. The first amendment refers only to the suspension of the disqualification for nomination and election during

307
the period of a statutory right of appeal, and then, of course, the appeal must be heard. The suspension during appeal provided in the second amendment for membership of the House of Commons, does not appear to be confined to statutory rights, but would extend to any appeal. I was a little surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said that he felt that he would support the Opposition Front Bench in this matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord had quite taken on board that, as the amendment is drafted, this would mean that for a very long period of time it would be necessary to wait to see whether a Member who had been convicted for a period of more than a year would make an appeal. I repeat this because, of course, on conviction a person is found guilty and if in prison can no longer represent his constituents. But this is an amendment which would affect sitting Members of another place, and it is relevant that another place debated this and voted against the amendment.
I only say that because I do not find it surprising that even on this very sensitive issue affecting Members of another place, the House of Commons decided against this amendment. After all, until 14 years ago, the law was what the Bill now says it ought to be in respect of sitting Members. By that, I mean that the Forfeiture Act 1870, which was repealed in 1967, disqualified from sitting and voting in the House of Commons and from being elected to the House immediately upon sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me a direct question about that. He said that he felt that that did not mean that the Member would then be disqualified by the old Forfeiture Act, which was the law of the land until 14 years ago. The noble Lord invited me to respond. Perhaps I might draw the noble Lord's attention to a case which I ventured to mention on Second Reading, which was the case of Arthur Alfred Lynch, who was adjudged guilty of high treason in March 1903. But, of course, high treason fell into exactly the same section of the Forfeiture Act 1870 as the position of those people who had committed crimes for which they had been convicted with sentences of more than 12 months. In considering the vacancy which was occasioned by Mr. Lynch's misdemeanour, in the House of Commons on 2nd March, 1903, at column 1121 the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Finlay, quoted, first, the relevant section of the Forfeiture Act 1870 and then he said:
"That express enactment renders it quite unnecessary for the House to pass any resolution stating that that is the effect of the judgment. Before that Act the practice had been established of having a resolution declaring that the judgment had the effect of disqualifying the person in question, and that practice survived in several cases after the statute of 1870;"
the Attorney-General continued:
"but I think the House will agree with me that in the face of this express enactment it is absolutely unnecessary to pass any resolution. That is a matter of clear law, and the only question that remains is, what shall be done with reference to the vacancy in Galway, which has been so created?".
My reading of that is that in 1903 the Attorney-General was saying that the 1870 Act in fact disqualified the Member of Parliament. Again, I do not find that surprising.
308
Finally, may I ask your Lordships to consider the effect of the second of the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In the event of a Member of another place being convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of, let us say, three years or five years, under this second amendment everyone would have to wait for an indefinite period in case the Member were to appeal. I think that it would he most undesirable to disenfranchise the clectorate of the constituency concerned, pending an appeal made within the statutory limits, which is the effect of the first amendment; but to remove the right to have a Member of Parliament from a constituency, while an appeal was awaited out of time, from someone convicted and sentenced, which is the effect of the second amendment, really would be intolerable. I only venture to say that so trenchantly because that was the view of Members of another place, that these amendments should not be made, and I hope that your Lordships will take the same view.
Lord Mishcon: May I pay tribute to the noble Lord for a very powerful speech, but unhappy is the person who endeavours to debate with the Government Front Bench. I say that, because whichever way one argues, one will find that one cannot win. I shall instance this to the Committee in this way. In the other place, when almost the same amendment was moved by the honourable Member for Grantham, the argument against him was that in the case of someone who was nominated, it was very wrong, because of the time element, to approve of this amendment by virtue of the fact that the person concerned could appeal out of time and the whole thing could go on interminably.
Therefore I endeavoured to answer that argument in the case of nomination and election by saying, "Well, let us limit it to that category who do in fact comply with the rules and who appeal within the 28 days that are allowed". When I do that, I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I am guilty of arguing an anomalous position because I have taken one section only of those people who might appeal and I have discarded the rest. In such a debate nobody can win. Nevertheless, I shall struggle on.
I do not want to repeat the arguments I have advanced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, will forgive me if I instance his speech which, as usual, was most powerful, but he talked about the circumstances in which this legislation was being put to the House. He talked about the scandal—and scandal it is—of what happened in the Sands election. I do not like the idea of Parliament being bombed into legislation by the IRA. I dislike it intensely. I dislike the fact that the whole time we have got in mind the Sands election. I dared to say at Second Reading that this will become known as the "Sands Bill", and I did not think he was entitled to that memorial.
I am trying to plead for people not guilty of terrorist acts; not guilty of treason. I am talking about the person who may be involved in business and, as a result it may be of the dereliction of fellow directors, finds himself on trial because his company has done something wrong. Then it is found that he should never have been convicted, by virtue of the fact that he did not have the knowledge and could not be

309
impugned as a result of that. I am even talking about a person who, in spite of the fact that there is a breach of the law—and obviously a breach of the law cannot be condoned—may, for conscientious reasons which the electorate think were conscientious and they support him, find himself sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment.
Our penal legislation these days goes very far. It goes very far in regard to all sorts of legislation that am not going to instance before your Lordships now. I cannot carry the argument any further than to say that it is not just the view of somebody on this side of the Committee, or this side of the Committee in another place; it was the view of a distinguished lawyer and member of a distinguished legal family that the appellate rights must be recognised, if not—and I say this; he did not say it—of the person nominated and elected, at least of the person who is a sitting Member in another place. As I said, I can carry the matter no further. I do not think there are any politics in this. Therefore I hope that those who do not feel the stinging impact of a Whip may feel fit to vote on this amendment when the time comes as something that is an intrinsic part of our justice.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.34 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I apologise to the noble Lord that I did not give him notice of this question, and I shall well understand if he tells me that he is going to write to me about it, unless of course he can answer the question now. The Committee will be aware of the very short programme of time that we have for consideration of this Bill, and this thought occurred to me only this morning when I was reading Clause 1.
The clause refers to one or more offences, and then goes on to refer to an indefinite term in regard to detention or custody. It occurred to me that there is of course both criminal contempt and civil contempt, which can operate if the person concerned is convicted of it by the court's deciding that he shall be in custody for an indefinite period until he purges his contempt. "Offence" is not defined in this Bill, and I merely ask the Minister to consider—and not necessarily answer me now, because I have thrown this point at him—whether or not the disqualification provisions apply immediately to somebody who, on nomination day or indeed on election day, or indeed if he is a sitting Member, finds himself in contempt, for example in regard to an order made in the Family Division, and is therefore in custody by an order of the court—and an order is mentioned this clause—for an indefinite period, namely until he purges his contempt.
Lord Belstead: I am advised that the answer to the noble Lord's question is that Clause 1 only covers criminal contempt.
Lord Mishcon: If that is so, if it covers criminal contempt, although it is unusual for the court—and here I invoke the aid, if I may, of noble and learned Lords present in the Committee—and is not the practice of the criminal court to confine somebody to custody for an indefinite period, it is competent for a
310
criminal court to do so, and indeed it has been done. I repeat, it is not the practice but it can be done in the case of criminal contempt. In those circumstances, I ask the Minister whether he would care to consider this. The situation would be extraordinary. If someone on nomination or election, or a sitting Member, was indeed in contempt of court and was therefore detained and it happened to be for 24 hours, but the order was that he be detained indefinitely, surely he would be caught by this.
Lord Belstead: Certainly I will consider what the noble Lord has said. I would remind the noble Lord of what I ventured to say to the Committee on the first of the noble Lord's two amendments which we have just been discussing. If on nomination day, for instance, a person has been adjudged a bankrupt, he is then caught. Therefore, although I realise that I am not comparing like with like, the fact that the time factor works in the way the noble Lord is putting it, I do not think is necessarily as unfair as the noble Lord appears to think.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Effects of disqualification]:
4.29 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("void") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: Arguments in support of this amendment were included in the debate on the Second Reading. I am certain that most noble Lords who have read the Official Report will take the view that many of the arguments were not fully answered by the Government. The claim is made that the Bill, and this clause in particular, are to meet a particular Northern Ireland situation. This afternoon the noble Lord, the Lord President, said the reason is that a constituency is unrepresented. He also said that the effect was greater on another place than on this House, and that latter reason is why the amendment does not propose to deal at all with the first part of the clause, which concerns disqualification from membership of the House of Commons. However, the second part of Clause 2(1) says:
"if such a person is nominated for election as a member of that House his nomination shall be void".
That does not confine the clause to Northern Ireland. I will not deal with all the arguments put forward, even on the Northern Ireland question, on Second Reading, except to say that the clause would in no way debar from nomination a gunman or terrorist who had completed his sentence and was no longer detained in prison.
My main point is that the Bill, and this clause in particular, could affect any constituency and the electors of any constituency in the United Kingdom, so in that respect it is a fundamental constitutional change. Reference has been made, particularly on Second Reading, to the fact that the Bill seeks to restore the position to what it was prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1967. In fact, the clause goes far beyond that; there has never been a situation where a person has been disqualified from nomination, though that is what the clause is proposing and what

311
the amendment seeks to change. In other words, the clause would introduce something we have not had in our constitution for a century or more.
The electors of a constituency have always had the right to elect whom they wish, even if they wish to act irresponsibly. Numerous examples were given on Second Reading of such cases and I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them; in fact, I shall credit all noble Lords present, and those who are interested outside, with having read the Official Report, and therefore they would have read the examples which were given at that stage. However, we also dealt on Second Reading with the possibilities of persons who could be covered by the clause, not just terrorists and gunmen but individuals who felt they should stand out on a conscience issue and who might find themselves acting contrary to the law and, as a result, imprisoned for a year or more. All those people, if still detained, could be debarred from nomination—the sort of people who in the past have stood for a constituency and about whom their constituents have said, "We admire what you have done and we shall elect you, even though we know you are not entitled to take your seat and vote in the House of Commons".
The amendment is designed to maintain the constitutional right of electors to choose whom they want. We have always stood for the right of constituencies to vote for whomever they want, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate that that is the principle of the amendment. I also hope noble Lords will remove from their minds the question of Northern Ireland; this must not he dealt with solely in the context of Northern Ireland because it is a great constitutional right. This House has always stood for the protection of constitutional rights. That is what the amendment is about and I hope noble Lords will support it.
Lord Hylton: I indicated on Second Reading that I supported the principle of this amendment, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will press it because in my view it is even more important than Amendments Nos. 2 or 4. My noble friend Lord Belstead on Second Reading indicated that the Government were anxious in the Northern Irish context to stop up certain loopholes. They may be doing so, but they had better he careful because they will find there are an enormous number of loopholes still open and usable which would be almost impossible to cure by any amount of legislation. I am thinking, for instance, of terrorists who have completed their sentences; of others who have been sentenced to terms of less than one year; and of the possibility of changes of name by deed poll, as was brought out—without reference to this Bill—in a Question in the House earlier today. In the past we have seen in other countries, particularly in the Commonwealth, many occasions when former terrorists have been negotiated with, been elected, become Prime Ministers and valued members if the Commonwealth. Can we sensibly say to a particular terrorist organisation, "You shall not try to make use of parliamentary and democratic procedure"? think we may be very unwise to do so.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is of course entitled to ask what has prompted the
312
Government to go beyond the provisions of the 1870 Act in putting this provision in the Bill—that disqualifications can extend to nominations—and the Government's answer to that is simple. The considerations really have changed in the intervening years. In more recent years the benefits accruing to candidates have increased enormously. I referred to some of them in moving the Second Reading; the free post facility, the free use of public rooms for election meetings and, most significant of all in the recent context, the many additional opportunities for coverage by the press and broadcasting authorities.
I am afraid we cannot put out of our minds what happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The fact of the matter there was that those who put up a prisoner as a candidate in a parliamentary election gained by that act itself many opportunities, which they ruthlessly exploited, to spread their propaganda. It was against that background that we had to decide how we should respond in order to prevent that recurring. We decided that as imprisonment is a matter of fact, it should not be unreasonable to prevent the nomination of a prisoner disqualified from election under the Bill.
Incidentally, in suggesting, as has been suggested, that the provisions which the amendment seeks to remove would be a total constitutional innovation, that is not quite correct. Under the provisions of the Scottish local elections rules a returning officer could reject a nomination if he was not satisfied that the potential candidate was eligible to stand, for example on grounds of a prospective candidate holding a disqualifying office or because such a person was under the age for qualification, and the procedure embodied in the Bill is therefore not entirely new.
It was, I assure the House, a common theme of the many representations which the Government received about the election result in Fermanagh and South Tyrone that it should not be possible for a convicted terrorist to stand, let alone to be elected. The people who expressed that view were very much aware that it is not only the act of election but also the act of nomination and candidature during a run-up to the election which is objectionable. The effect of the amendment, if carried, would be that the matter of disqualification could not be resolved until after the election, probably on consideration by an election court of an election petition. Meanwhile, those who manipulated a hunger-striking prisoner, for example, whom they put up as a candidate, would be able to take full advantage of all the propaganda, all the distress, and all the disruption of the election process, and I do not think that is right. On those grounds the Government do not think the amendment is right either.
Viscount Simon: Towards the end of his speech the noble Lord spoke about the Scottish position, and if I understood aright, he said that the returning officer could refuse a nomination if the person was disqualified from standing. That is begging, the question, is it not? He cannot refuse a nomination because the person is disqualified from sitting. The Bill will require the returning officer to refuse a nomination because it is to disqualify the man from standing if he would be disqualified from sitting. I think that that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was

313
making, and to that extent it is a new proposition. I am not at the moment arguing whether it is right or wrong, but it is a new proposition.
Lord Hale: I should like to add only a few words to what has just been correctly said, because there was a slight omission. In many circumstances the returning officer cannot know what is a disqualifying office. We have spent much time in passing Acts of Parliament to revoke discrimination against people who held tuppence ha'penny little offices. I am not speaking of them in a derogatory way, but they were offices of no great wealth. My noble friend makes a little signal to me which indicates that I can go a little further and say something that I was not going to say. Almost every day we have the privilege of seeing on the Front Bench a most distinguished Member who managed to disqualify himself quite unknowingly by having something to do with citrus fruits. A considerable number of Labour Members came into Parliament in 1945 and their disqualification was connected with accepting fees from a Government office, very properly, in the ordinary course of business. I do not think that that form of disqualification has very much to do with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Rawlinson of Ewell.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, introduced the term "realistic". I do not doubt that the noble Lord knows most cases, but I wonder whether he knows of the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred when he opened his speech. It is not now well known. It happened some time ago. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, stated the facts with absolute correctitude. I say that because I knew about the case; I had some connection with it. I knew the Member concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite properly did not mention the name. The person ultimately retired from another place with the complete approval of his constituents and with their complete gratitude for his many years of service. He did not leave us so very long ago. He was a man of absolute probity. He was convicted by a British court of an offence that did not exist—an offence which had it been an offence, the court made quite clear he had no connection with, and no one could have believed it. I think that the use of the word "realistic" in connection with the law at all would have to be limited.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask what on earth would be the point of a candidate standing if he is disqualified from sitting? It seems completely nonsensical. My noble friend behind me said that it was unfair if a terrorist could not take advantage of the democratic process. My God! if he is a terrorist, he has no right to take advantage of the democratic process.
Viscount Barrington: I should like to say a few words in favour of what my noble friend has said. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I would say that there is a difference between standing and sitting. It has been seriously suggested that certain noble Lords in this Chamber should be allowed to sit, but not allowed to stand up and speak. I would submit that these matters are quite different. Whether it is right or wrong to have sitting Peers
314
who are not allowed to speak, or speaking Peers who are not allowed to sit, is an interesting question, but it does not alter the fact that sitting and standing are different things, which I think is what my noble friend was pointing out.
Lord Belstead: If I may reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I would say that the point that I was seeking to make during my remarks is that under the previous Scottish local election rules—and I think that by a slip of the tongue I said the present Scottish election rules—if a person was disqualified, a returning officer could have thrown out the nomination. It is that point which I believe is on all fours with what is being proposed in the Bill at present.
Viscount Simon: The noble Lord said, "If a person was disqualified"—but disqualified from what? Is he disqualified from standing or from sitting?
Lord Belstead: I do not want to make my speech all over again. I itemised the kind of ways in which the person could be disqualified, and perhaps the noble Viscount would care to glance through Hansard to see what I said.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It is an odd circumstance when former Scottish election rules are invoked so as to persuade noble Lords to do something by way of enactment in order to deal with a situation in Ireland. I hope that I am not being very insular when I say that this seems to be an odd geographical argument, to say the least. I want to add only a few words in answer to what the noble Lord has said. The arguments here have been very clearly expressed and there is no point in repetition. What is in issue here is as follows—and I beg of the noble Lord at least to listen to this argument. I was trying awfully hard to keep Ireland and Irish circumstances out of the argument, but if we are to legislate because of what is happening in Ireland, will the noble Lord consider what the situation is likely to be in regard to propaganda issued by those who are not disposed in a friendly way to this country's position in Ireland?
It is said that a person shall not be elected if he is serving a term of more than 12 months' imprisonment—and we have all been told that this is really all about the Irish terrorists who have been convicted and who are serving such sentences. In addition, we, the mother of democracy, not just the mother of Parliaments, say to the whole world that we go further than that. We are now preventing people who are in that position from being even nominated, and, in the language of the Minister, we are doing that because we do not want them at the cost of the state to be propagating in their literature and election addresses ideas that we abhor.
There immediately occurs to me the saying, which is often used, about hating opinions but defending to the death the right for them to be expressed. What we are saying at this moment to the whole world is that these people cannot be listened to because they have chosen the bomb instead of the ballot box. Public expenditure can be used by fascist candidates in this country in order to propagate racial hatred,
Clause 3 [Amendment of Parliamentary Elections Rules]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("but notwithstanding anything in that Schedule, regulations shall be made to provide that the last day for an application for a postal vote shall be ten days before the day of the poll").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which strictly is not in any way associated with Northern Ireland; there can be no emotional arguments about this one. It is rather a technical issue affecting elections. The schedule of this Bill provides for the exclusion of Saturdays in calculating the days during the election period. It also provides for changes in the election timetable, for the last date of receipt of nominations and for polling day itself. The effect will be to change the last date for receipt of applications to be treated as an absent voter. The regulations as at present provide that this last date is 12 days before the day of the poll, excluding any excepted days.
If we take polling at a general election as normally being on a Thursday, then the last date for absent vote applications is the Thursday two weeks before. The changes in the schedule make this the Tuesday before then; that is, 16 days—counting all days—instead of 14 as at present. I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Minister will argue that under the schedule the period of the campaign from proclamation will be extended; but that is not the issue. Many noble Lords will have participated in elections and appreciate that work on the postal votes intensifies the nearer one gets to polling day. As canvassing increases, so the absent votes applications increase, particularly those for removals, which are usually found by canvassers as they are going around. To move the closing date for applications further away from polling day will be unwise, not only for those who are concerned with the democratic running of elections but also for the effect on electors.
I should like the noble Lord to confirm the information which I have, that this important change has been carried through without the normal type of consultation that there is with the political parties. I have never known in all my experience any amendment proposing absent vote changes—never mind other election law changes—to be made without consultation. It may well be that consultation might have led to rather a different provision in the schedule. It is the principle with which we are concerned and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to agree to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: On Second Reading, and again this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has expressed concern that, as a result of the changes in the parliamentary election timetable, there will be less opportunity for electors to make postal voting applications, in that we may now only have a minimum of 16 "working days'" rather than 17 "working days'" notice of a parliamentary general election, while in the Representation of the People Regulations applications for postal votes have to be disregarded by the registration officer if they are received after the twelfth day before the date of the poll. May I say, in passing, that although I am a Member of your Lordships' House, I am very much aware, working on the opposite
320
side in politics to the noble Lord, of the extreme importance of this particular provision in our law. Very often I have seen the date for the closing of postal votes coming towards me as I have gone rapidly from house to house. The noble Lord recognises that because Saturdays are no longer to be treated as "working days", we are in fact extending the normal calendar timetable of notice of a parliamentary general election by two days.
Before dealing with the substantive issue, I think I ought to draw attention to some deficiencies in the wording of the noble Lord's amendment. First it deals only with postal voting, but I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to apply the same rules to proxy applications if it was going to be written into law. Secondly, the amendment refers to "applications", although I assume that it is intended to refer to the receipt of applications rather than merely to the day on which they are sent. Thirdly, this Bill does not in fact confer any regulation-making power on the Secretary of State. Any new regulations to deal with postal voting, amending the 1974 regulations with which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is familiar, could fall to be made under regulation-making powers in the Representation of the People Act 1949. In fact the provisions in paragraph 2 of the schedule to this Bill dealing with the computation of time does not affect the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, in which there are specific computation of time provisions separate from those in the 1949 Act. If the Bill is passed, therefore, while Saturdays will no longer be working days for the purposes of nomination and other proceedings set out in the parliamentary elections rules in the 1949 Act, the provisions of the regulation under which application for postal votes may be made and received on Saturdays will not be affected. It does not therefore follow that on all occasions there will be less time for making and receiving absent voting applications. The amendment which is I am sure designed on the false assumption that Saturdays are not working days, does not seem at this stage, at least, to be necessary.
The Government accept, however, that to have two separate computation of time provisions, which will no longer be in parallel, may not prove to be satisfactory. It may be necessary to revise the Representation of the People Regulations to clarify the matter. As the noble Lord knows, it is the practice of the Government to consult ad hoc with the electoral registration officers' representatives and the political parties on changes such as this. If it is necessary, we shall certainly do so on this occasion. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. It has been valuable that we have been able to discuss this matter, which, as the noble Lord says, is really divorced from the rest of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: May I first accept what the noble Lord said about the drafting of the amendment. All I can say in excuse for myself is that this raises the very point which my noble friend raised, that these amendments had to be put in at such short notice, and this one was put in in handwriting at nine o'clock at night. I accept the corrections that the noble Lord has made.
I appreciate that there will be opportunities for

321
consultation with the returning officers and also with the political parties. But that cannot affect this Bill, because this Bill is going to be passed through all stages today. Therefore, unless the noble Lord the Minister can possibly bring forward an emergency manuscript amendment, we have to approve the Bill as it is now, including the schedule. However, in view of what the Minister has said I will not press the amendment. I hope that possibly in the future there will be some amending regulation. I hope only that it will be kept in mind that the point I was making is not that there will not be the same amount of time to get postal votes but that the closing date for the receipt of applications will be moved further away from polling day, and the further it is moved away from polling day the greater the difficulty as far as the electors are concerned. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Citation]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall remain in force until the expiry of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless continued in force by an Order made by the Secretary of State which shall be laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord opposite, who has much experience in matters of voting and Divisions, pointed out to me with a smile about 10 minutes ago that I had acquired far more votes when speaking briefly than when I had addressed your Lordships at some length. I hope to learn from the lesson! I merely have to commend this amendment, which your Lordships will see seeks to make this Bill one which will be in operation for 12 months and thereafter can be renewed by order of the Secretary of State, provided it has the approval of both Houses. A small point which I am sure your Lordships will appreciate is this. We have been driven, if I may use that word, into this Bill by events which have occurred in Northern Ireland, which all of us deplore. In my view, we have not really had an opportunity of doing more than saying we must pass this Bill as a temporary measure in order to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. The Committee may well accept that as a proper Act. At this very moment in another place, I believe they are considering whether or not to prolong the legislation which deals with the question of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and your Lordships may think it appropriate that this Bill, if passed, shall be for a period of one year, and if indeed it is shown to be an enactment which has not the defects some of us feel it might have as a constitutional Bill, it can go on thereafter purely by order of the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. But, if we find that it has not worked in the way we think it should, we have an opportunity then of bringing this measure to an end. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My noble friend has been so brief that he renders it possible for me to add a few
322
words in support without taking up more time than would be normally taken up by a single speech, because I shall emulate him in being equally brief. It seems to me that what he has said is very cogent indeed and I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept what my noble friend has said and to accept the amendment.
I think it is generally agreed on all sides of the Committee that this Bill is brought forward because of events in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have a Bill of general application, because in the Bill itself there is no specific reference to Northern Ireland although we all know that is the causation of the Bill; and so we have the position where, because of a particular case, a general proposition is put forward. Where a general proposition or a general "cure" is put forward in order to deal with a specific case, this seems ideally suited for temporary legislation, and therefore I would have thought that my noble friend's argument is very persuasive and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will see his way to accept it.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support this amendment and I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept it. He said on Second Reading at col. 143 on 30th June 1981:
"…the Bill is aimed…at those who organise terrorism,".
I think we all hope, regardless of party, of where we live or anything else, that terrorism will not be a permanent feature of the life of this nation. Therefore, this seems to me an extremely suitable subject for temporary legislation.
The only other point I would make is that the organisation known as Provisional Sinn Fein is a perfectly legal party. At some time they may decide to put up candidates who are convicted felons and sometimes they may decide to put up ordinary civilians. That is up to them. I do not think we should exercise a judgment by statute, and by permanent statute, on what sort of candidate a legal party may put up.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I regret that I disagree with my noble friend. I think that this Bill is right in principle. I do not think it is right that anyone who, as we say, stands for Parliament or, as the Americans would put it, runs for office, who wishes to represent a constituency in Parliament and who has been convicted of offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for more than one year, should be allowed to stand. I do not think it is right that a person should so stand and therefore I believe the Bill is right in principle.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support what my noble friend has just said because I also am not in favour of this amendment. If the other place had, in their own wisdom, thought it right that people who were convicted should stand for Parliament, they themselves would have brought forward this amendment. They are very careful and caring about their own honour and integrity, and I do not think it is right that we should disagree with them at this stage by passing this amendment. I therefore hope that it will be rejected.
Lord Belstead: I welcome the opportunity to make again a point that I have made before but which I think bears repeating. I do not think that the country will believe it to be right—this year, next year or the year after—that a prisoner serving a substantial sentence should be elected to another place because it is then impossible for such a person properly to represent all his constituents, including those who did not vote for him. The people of the constituency are in effect disenfranchised. Moreover, the candidature of prisoners who have been convicted of serious offences and people who, as we have seen in the recent election in Northern Ireland, have no intention or wish to represent anyone in Parliament and yet are still able to enjoy all the privileges of candidature really does provoke a feeling of outrage among the public and brings our electoral system into disrepute. The Government therefore have no hesitation in bringing forward this measure, and see no justification for constricting its operation by an arbitrary time limit.
Perhaps I might say finally that we believe that the disqualification of convicted prisoners, which is common to virtually every other democratic electoral system, is a desirable feature of our electoral law. Of course the Government cannot bind future Parliaments: they may take another view. But for the moment we believe that Parliament is ready to take a view on this issue and that the public expect us to pass this Bill without qualification.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
In the Schedule.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 40, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete two new rules in the schedule. Paragraph 4 gives the returning officer power to disqualify a nomination. Paragraph 5 is consequential and sets out the procedure to be followed in carrying out paragraph 4. I propose to concentrate my few remarks on paragraph 4, because that is the important amendment.
At present, a returning officer determines only the validity of nomination papers—I emphasise that—on two grounds: first, that the details of the candidates and others who subscribed to the paper are not as required by law; and, secondly, that the papers are not subscribed as required by law. There is no other reason. Up to now, the returning officer has not had any power or responsibility to determine whether a person is fit and proper to be nominated. The returning officer has adjudicated only on the completion of the nomination paper.
Again, we may be quoted past Scottish local election rules, but what I am saying applies to parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom, to parliamentary by-elections throughout the United Kingdom and also to local elections in England and Wales. Therefore, we are bringing in a completely new power for a returning officer.
At the moment, if there is any challenge following an election, the position can be dealt with either by a decision of the House of Commons, if a person is
324
elected and it wishes to take action, or by an election petition. This issue again must not be considered in the context of Northern Ireland. It must be looked at only from the standpoint of extending election law to give an additional responsibility to the returning officer, which he has never had previously. Therefore, once again, a fundamental change is being made in election law.
Whatever other consultations there may have been, I can assure your Lordships that one important political party has had no consultation at all about this change in election law. Developing this power of a returning officer is surely an important change, on which there ought to have been consultation, and this Bill will now bring in this important change. As the proposed amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mishcon was negatived, that means that there will be no opportunity to come back to this, unless at some time the Government introduce completely new regulations. Because of this change in election law, I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I hesitate to cross swords with somebody with such experience of this whole subject as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. But all the Bill is doing is imposing on a returning officer a duty to examine a candidate's qualification on the one ground alone; namely, that the candidate is not serving a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year. That will be a matter of fact, and if the returning officer is clear that the candidate is in prison for more than one year, it is on that one ground alone, as a matter of fact, that the nomination will be rejected.
Of course, as I was at great pains to try to say on Second Reading, if the returning officer is not sure and it appears to be a matter of discretion, then he will obviously use his discretion in favour of the candidate and the matter will go forward. Then, if it is found that the candidate is serving a period of imprisonment of more than one year, it will be a matter of voiding the election. This is perfectly reasonable, so far as returning officers are concerned. All the Bill does is to ask them to adjudicate on a matter of fact. On that ground, I hope that the noble Lord may reconsider his amendment.
Lord Underhill: It is correct that we are asking the returning officer to adjudicate on a matter of fact. Therefore, so could the returning officer be asked to adjudicate on every other matter of fact, dealing with every other type of person who could be disqualified. I shall not go into that now, but on Second Reading the Minister detailed all the categories of persons who are now disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Commons. One could place all those responsibilities on the returning officer, as matter of fact. But we are not doing that. We are picking out just one, and we are extending that power.
In view of what the Minister has said, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But I hope that he and his department will give serious attention to this point, because the Bill is extending a power and I am certain that many people will wonder why there is this one extension of power. There could be a danger of

325
extending a returning officer's power to adjudicate on an individual's qualifications, instead of on the completion of the nomination paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Report received.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
5.47 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I had forgotten the rapid programme of this Bill when I addressed the House earlier, and asked the noble Lord the Minister whether he could deal with a point which worried me on Clause 1. I am now dealing only with a defect in the Bill. I am obviously not dealing with the policy of the Bill. I invited him, since I had taken him by surprise, and knew it, to write to me if he wished. But I had forgotten that, in spite of the rapidity of our Post Office, which we all know about it was wrong to expect that I would be getting a letter—when I invited him to do this only an hour ago—by the time the Third Reading of this Bill had been reached. I am worried and I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister can carry this matter any further.
May I just remind your Lordships very briefly of what the point was. Clause 1 reads as follows:
"A person found guilty of one or more offences"—
and the noble Lord the Minister, in answer to a question that I put, said that, yes, it would be an offence if it were a question of criminal contempt—
"… and sentenced"—
that would not necessarily apply to criminal contempt on my point—
"… or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely"—
those were the words on which I concentrated—
"… shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons while detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland in pursuance of the sentence or order or while unlawfully at large at a time when he would otherwise be so detained".
I conceded at once that it is not usual, so far as I know, that in a case of criminal contempt there is an indefinite sentence. As we know, that is very often the case in civil contempt, where somebody is imprisoned for breach of an order until the contempt is purged. But in criminal contempt, it is still possible for a court—and this has been done—to say to somebody "You have been in contempt of court. You will be detained indefinitely and I will make up my mind, very possibly, about the sentence when I know that you have apologised or behaved in a way in which you ought to have done". There are, therefore, cases that are quite possible, where somebody has been a Member of the House, or been a parliamentary candidate, and has offended a magistrate or a judge in that way and finds that on the very vital day—
326
namely, the day of nomination or election, or subsequently, while sitting as a Member of the House—he has been ordered to be detained indefinitely. It is this which troubles me. It is a genuine point. It is not one that is meant to have any significance regarding the policy of the Bill. However, bearing in mind the rush that we are faced with, I am anxious that we should not do something foolish. That is my reason for raising the point. If there is a complete answer I shall retire, I hope gracefully, from the point.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, from what my noble friend the Minister has said several times during the course of the passage of the Bill, it is quite clear that its prime motive is an anti-terrorist one. It has been introduced because of the concern, anxiety and disquiet which have been expressed by many sides to the Government about abuses of the parliamentary process by terrorists. Can my noble friend therefore explain why it has been found necessary to tack on to the Bill certain matters which deal with the technicalities of all elections? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved two amendments, one dealing with postal votes and the other with returning officers, which have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. The course which the Government have adopted seems to be particularly strange because, as I understand it, a general review of electoral law is taking place in the Home Office. I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer this question—all the more so because we have had to consider the whole Bill in a mere 48 hours.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Bill is unique in at least two respects. The first is that the primary reason for the penalty which is adduced in the Bill—disqualification from standing for Parliament—is one which may be exacted in any country in the world. In other words, the guilt for which the penalty may be exacted may be found not only in this country but anywhere else in the world. The word "elsewhere" means "elsewhere". Therefore we in these Houses of Parliament are saying that, in determining the question of guilt, we shall allow the laws of any country to apply. As I said at Second Reading, this must be unique. I cannot think of any other measure which has ever passed through Parliament in which Parliament has said that we shall decide that the guilt determined in any country, whether we approve or disapprove of that country, whether it be a dictatorship or any other kind of country, will be the determining factor as to whether or not the penalty applies.
The noble Lord says, "Yes, but there is another qualification. He has not only got to be found guilty; he has also got to be detained in this country or in the Republic of Ireland". The Minister also says that the word "elsewhere" in the Bill—this is its second unique characteristic—does not mean "elsewhere". This is the only Bill I have ever known in which a Minister has said that a word does not mean what it says. The noble Lord told us what the word "elsewhere" means. I endeavoured in an amendment to the Bill to spell out what the Minister had told us at Second Reading is really meant by the word "elsewhere". The Minister told us earlier today that he

327
was not quite right then: that its meaning was a little different, but he was quite unwilling to substitute for the word "elsewhere" what he says is meant by "elsewhere". In other words, he insists upon having in the Bill the word "elsewhere", which he says does not mean what it says, rather than that there should be put into the Bill the words which he says it does mean.
So in two respects the Bill is unique. It is unhappily unique, in the sense that it takes into account the question of guilt elsewhere in the world and also in the sense that it includes a word which the Minister himself says is not the word which is really meant. These are two things which these Houses of Parliament do not normally do. I am glad that they do not do it and I think that they ought not to do it in this Bill.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, may I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, posed as a question to my noble friend the Minister? It is very rash always to try to give answers to legal matters from the Back-Benches. It is easier to pose questions. However, it seems to me that in Clause 1 a person has to be found guilty of one or more offences. The word "offence" is the governing word. It appears to me that the offence can only be, in matters of contempt, criminal contempt. Criminal contempt is governed by the powers of the court to order settled terms of imprisonment. It is in civil contempt that indefinite orders are sometimes made. If somebody is in breach of an order of the court with regard to a matrimonial matter or a matter of property that is civil contempt, and it seems to me that in those cases it would not be an offence. This is my preliminary feeling about the very important and interesting question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: that where it is a civil contempt, where there may be an indefinite detention, it does not become an offence and therefore does not come within Clause 1 of the Bill. As I have said, it is a very rash man who gives an answer. It is a crafty man, though, who poses the question.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House and before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I thank him very much for his intervention. It was very courageous of him and it was typically helpful. I did concentrate on criminal contempt and I took the precaution of looking up the authorities, which appear to say that a judge in a criminal court still has the right to impose an indefinite sentence and is not bound by statute to impose a fixed sentence, although it is the custom of the court so to do. That may he wrong and I may have misread the authorities. However, the rush that we are in makes it necessary, in my view, for me to raise the point. I have done it as a matter of conscience. If I am proved to be wrong hereafter I have wasted only a moment or two of the time of the House. If I am proved to be right, it is one of the reasons for saying that a Bill of this kind ought not to be rushed in this way.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it only remains for me to say, as the House would expect me to say, that both my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are both right, speaking for the different branches of the law. I shall not say
328
any more about what they have said. However, I think I am correct in saying that the Contempt of Court Bill which was the subject of further consideration yesterday in your Lordships' House, will remove the power of the court to imprison somebody for an indefinite period of time for either civil or criminal contempt. If I am wrong about that, I will most certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, although it is perhaps uncharacteristic of me to claim it, I believe that I am correct.
May I reply to my noble friend Lord Hylton? He asked me, perfectly reasonably, why the schedule is in the Bill. The schedule is in the Bill because it deals, among other things, with such matters as the rejection of nominations, which is an integral feature of the Bill, and the power of a returning officer to reject nominations. This is a necessary power, the Government believe, to be included in the Bill. It also deals with certain timetabling provisions which we have debated with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. These are necessary parts of the Bill. I think I have already debated the point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, raised. Therefore I hope that the Bill may now be read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with apologies to the House, it may at this moment be convenient if I now do what I omitted to do at the beginning of business today. I should like to confirm that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Report stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned for a short period some time after 7 o'clock, and the Third Readings of the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill and the Countryside (Scotland) Bill will be taken during the adjournment. I must again apologise to the House for my previous omission.

Transport Bill
6.1 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Power of Secretary of State to give directions.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2:
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("(notwithstanding any duty imposed on them by section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962)")
Page 3, line 39, at end insert (": Provided any such directions are not contrary to any duty imposed on the Board by section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be to the convenience of the House if Amendment No. 2 is taken together with Amendment No. 1. During the Committee stage a number of noble Lords expressed concern about the general contents of Clause 3 in regard to the powers that it gives to the Secretary of State. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to give directions to the Railways Board, to establish subsidiaries, and to dispose of the whole or part of the undertaking of a subsidiary. I would draw your

329
Lordships' attention to subsection (2), which reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Board (notwithstanding any duty imposed on them by Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962) to give effect to any directions given under this section".
At a later stage, when speaking to another amendment, I will deal with the general question of the power of the Secretary of State to give such directions, but this amendment relates solely to the duties placed on the board by the 1962 Act.
I believe it would be useful if I explained exactly what Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962 says, and I quote:
"It shall be the duty of the Railways Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient, and to have due regard, as respects all those railway and other services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
That is precisely what the subsection says.
At the Committee stage I proposed an amendment to ensure that any disposal of assets, or of a subsidiary of the Railways Board, should not relate to the establishment of a company to operate a particular railway line or network. The noble Lord the Minister assured me that such fears were unnecessary. I note from col. 1384 of the Official Report for 4th June that the noble Lord the Minister said:
"The board have a duty under Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962 to provide railway services and these disposal powers do not override that duty. If the board chose to sell part of the network as a going concern they would be in clear breach of that duty".
I now refer to the words set out in the amendment before your Lordships, namely:
"(notwithstanding any duty imposed on them by Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962)"
I ask the Minister to study those words carefully. In the light of what the noble Lord the Minister said at Committee stage—that if the Railways Board went against the powers of the 1962 Act they would be wrong—I cannot see how we can now give powers in this clause to the Minister to direct the board to do things notwithstanding the powers placed upon them. It seems that one or the other of those statements is contradictory. What the two amendments seek to ensure is that the Secretary of State shall not give directions irrespective of the powers given to the Board by the 1962 Act but instead that any direction he gives shall not be contrary to those powers. It seems to me that those two amendments are very reasonable and would be fully in line with what was said by the noble Lord the Minister at Committee stage. I move the amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Does the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wish the two amendments to be moved en bloc?
Lord Underhill: Yes, my Lords.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments, but before doing so may I humbly suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that he made a slip of the tongue. He spoke about the "powers" of the Railways Board but I believe it is the duties of the board which we are concerned with
330
here. It seems to me that if the board has these duties and if the Minister has said that the board would be failing in its duty to adopt these other duties, then it is quite incredible that the Minister should have power to instruct the board to do something that it is not allowed to do under the Act. I do not believe there is anything more I wish to say. I fully support these amendments, although when the time comes I would actually prefer Amendment No. 4 to these amendments.
6.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I do not wish to explain at length at this point the philosophy underlying Clause 3 because I think that the proper place to do that will be when we come to discuss a later amendment which seeks to delete the whole clause. I merely wish to repeat a point that my colleagues and I have made on many occasions already: that the Government are proceeding with the agreement of the Railways Board, and that they are in the lead. However, having allowed the board to take the initiative, it is surely reasonable that the Government should protect its position by having reserve powers—powers of last resort—to direct the board in carrying through the policy. By now your Lordships may be a little weary of hearing me say that these are "reserve powers", but this is such an important and fundamental point that I must emphasise it again here before passing to the specific amendments.
Powers for Ministers to give direction to nationalised industries are common enough in existing legislation. In quite a few cases these powers enable a Minister to direct an industry to dispose of assets or to cease a particular activity. Both sides of the House have promoted legislation of this kind when in government and I will give examples of that when we debate Amendment No. 4. However, I believe it is common ground between us that it is necessary for Ministers to have certain powers to direct nationalised industries. I believe that both sides of the House would also agree that where powers of direction exist, they need to be clear and effective. There is no point in enacting powers which are ambiguous and which are therefore open to legal challenge. Such powers are generally unusable and there is simply no point in putting them on the statute book.
This brings me to the purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 3, and particularly to the words between brackets which are at issue here. But before I explain their purpose I should like to point out that subsection (2) in its present form is the result of an Opposition amendment which the Government accepted at Committee stage in the other place. There it was suggested that the original drafting, which referred to the board's duties under "any other enactment", was too wide, and we accepted that a specific reference to Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962 should be substituted. The purpose of subsection (2) is to place the Railways Board under a duty to comply with any direction given under Clause 3. This is a necessary and conventional provision. The words in brackets provide that the board's duty under this subsection shall override their duty under Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962. This is essential to avoid any

331
ambiguity and to ensure that if it is necessary for the Secretary of State to give a direction it will be clear beyond all doubt that the board's duty under this Bill is the one that it must follow.
I agree that this is an unusual provision, but then the circumstances are unusual. The point is that the board's main statutory duties under Section 3(1) of the 1962 Act are drawn very widely. They are:
"To provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient"
It is in effect the board itself that determines the extent of its statutory duty. Although this is similar in some respects to the duties of the other boards set up under the 1962 Act, it seems to have no parallel in other nationalised industry legislation.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, see that, if these amendments were accepted, the Government might find themselves in the position in which the board went back on their undertaking to introduce private capital into, let us say, Sealink and, on receiving a direction to dispose of a controlling interest in the company, claim that they regarded it as expedient to continue to provide shipping and harbour services as an adjunct to the railway, and that therefore they were under a statutory duty to do so. This would probably frustrate the Secretary of State's purpose in giving a direction.
So these amendments are, in practice, wrecking amendments so far as Clause 3 is concerned. If they were carried, the Government's position would be undermined as surely as if the whole of Clause 3 were deleted from the Bill. For that reason I have to say that they are not acceptable to us and, in view of the rather detailed explanation I have given, I hope the noble Lord may feel able not to press the amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his detailed reply, but it does not help me at all; perhaps it is because I am dense. It is suggested that we must avoid any ambiguity, but frankly any ambiguity must be in existence when one says that a board must adhere to the duties and powers placed upon it by an Act but then goes on to say that the Minister can give powers notwithstanding those obligations. That seems to me to create ambiguity itself and that is what the Bill is doing. The question of the reserve power is completely irrelevant at this stage. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, that is something that we can discuss when we come to other amendments.
The reference to Sealink is very interesting, and maybe I can quote that when we come to Amendment No. 3, which is a rather important one. It is clear that the Government and I do not see eye to eye on this question. I will read very carefully what the Minister has said to see whether or not there is still so much ambiguity that we may have to come back at Third Reading, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) In the event of the Board being of the opinion that any directions which are proposed to be given or are given in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) hereof are contrary to the best interests of the Board or are not in accordance with its duties under section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962, the matter shall be determined by an enquiry. Any such enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment continues the consideration that we have been giving to the power of the Secertary of State to give directions to the Railway Board. I must point out that the clause says that he can give such directions to the board to act in a specified manner. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, stressed that it was not expected to have to use these powers, but it was reasonable that, if necessary, the Secretary of State should have such powers. The noble Lord emphasised, as he has again tonight, that these are only reserve powers.
At the Committee stage various other noble Lords stressed that there were no criteria in the Bill for invoking these provisions as a reserve. It was suggested, also, that there should be provision for some form of inquiry or arbitration should there be disagreement between the Rail Board and the Secretary of State. Naturally, if both the board and the Secretary of State are in agreement, there is no need whatever for the Secretary of State to give directions. Therefore, the use of what is called a "reserve power" would be only when the Secretary of State considers that the situation is such that he has to direct the board. So the amendment seeks to make provision where any directions by the Secretary of State are considered by the board to be contrary to their best interests, or they consider that such directions are not in accordance with the powers placed upon them by the 1962 Act.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has referred to "duties". The Act says,
"shall be the duty of the Board in the exercise of their powers under this Act",
and the side heading refers to "duties and powers of the Railway Board"; therefore I take it that it refers to both duties and powers. The amendment seeks to provide that where any directions by the Secretary of State are considered to be contrary to their best interests or contrary to the provisions of the 1962 Act, the question shall be determined by an inquiry. The amendment goes on further that any such inquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations which shall be made by the Secretary of State. Again, this seems to be a reasonable amendment. We are saying, "All right, reserve powers the Government feel that they must have; therefore if the board considers that these are against its interests or against the provisions of the 1962 Act they should have opportunity to make representations". We are suggesting that these should be made by some form of arbitration or inquiry and that such inquiries should be conducted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State himself. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I made the point when we were discussing the last pair of amendments that, if there was to be any point in taking powers of direction, the powers needed to be as clear as possible. If there is ambiguity about the way they are drafted or if the uses to which they can be put are uncertain, the powers are not worth having. The powers are wanted to ensure that the Government's policy of privatisation can be achieved—it is not an appropriate role for an independent inquiry to examine the merits of declared Government policy. For that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. When, during the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, originally suggested the possibility of arbitration or an inquiry to settle differences of view between the board and the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said:
"Arbitration or an inquiry on a matter of this kind may be difficult ".—[Official Report, 3/6/81; col. 1409.]
Clearly, he did not convince his noble friend Lord Underhill, but I think that Lord Mishcon's first reaction on that occasion was right, because this proposal is full of difficulties. Clearly the Secretary of State would not in normal circumstances need to give the board a direction to do something which they were prepared to do of their own volition. If a direction were given, it would be to an unwilling board who would not regard it as being in their best interests. So an inquiry would not be an exceptional happening, used to marshal the arguments in some particularly knotty case. On the contrary, it would presumably be necessary in every case and such a system would be unprecedented.
There are numerous powers for Ministers to direct nationalised industries in existing legislation and in no case are these subject to this kind of provision. In all other cases Parliament has given the last word to the Secretary of State. He is charged with oversight of the industry and, where he considers it necessary to give a direction, he will take account both of the interest of the industry concerned and of the wider national interest. He is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he uses his powers. An inquiry would merely go through the same processes of weighing all the factors that the Secretary of State must himself go through before giving a direction. It could not be asked to interpret the law because that is a matter for the courts and it should not be asked to consider whether the policy is right because that is an issue for Parliament. It is not necessary and, to the extent that it would create uncertainty and give scope for delaying tactics, it would be positively undesirable in a reserve power which we have made clear will be used only in circumstances where the board and the Secretary of State do not see eye to eye on their objectives.
I hope the House will agree that the Secretary of State has been quite open about his intentions towards the board's subsidiaries. He has told Parliament which businesses into which he wishes private capital to be introduced and has given notice that there are some other areas which, in his view, may benefit from private capital but for which there is at present no settled policy. He has undertaken to report any significant extension of the policy to Parliament. He is
334
content for the board themselves to take the lead in implementing the policy, leaving them a large area of discretion as to how to do this but he wishes to have reserve powers to safeguard his position. It is after all a joint policy and both parties need the power to ensure that it is implemented. The board themselves understand and accept this. In view of what I consider to be the eminently reasonable and responsible attitude that the Government have taken, we do not feel that there is any need for this amendment.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I feel that we shall really want to discuss the broad matter on Amendment No. 4. I wanted to ask one question. He did say that the directions given by the Minister would be subject to Parliament, but, with respect, that does not appear to be in the Bill; he merely gives the direction. I admit, of course, that Members of Parliament can then ask the Minister why he has done it, but the directions are not subject to parliamentary control.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, surely in all situations of this kind all matters that would indicate a deviation from anything which has been said as regards the general policy are normally reported to Parliament. It was in that sense that I said that Parliament would then be able to have its say. It was in that sense I meant it rather than the wording of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mishcon did say it might be difficult to have an inquiry but he did not say it would be wrong to try to have an inquiry. We do not avoid things that are difficult if they are desirable and necessary. In moving the amendment, I did so because I thought it was desirable. I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that we can dispose of this possibly far better by dealing with the whole of the provision, Clause 3. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have said already, I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept what from these Benches we regard as very reasonable amendments to ensure that any directions given to the board shall not be contrary to the provisions of the 1962 Act and provide for an inquiry where the Minister may consider the reserve powers are necessary. Therefore, I think there is no alternative but to move the amendment to leave out the entire clause. Extreme arbitrary powers are given in this clause to the Secretary of State. He can give directions, and frankly that means instructions, to the board to establish a subsidiary. We all know that the purpose of giving such an instruction to establish a subsidiary is for the purpose of eventually disposing of that undertaking. Or he can give instructions to dispose of the whole or part of any undertaking. He can also direct the board to carry this out in any manner that he shall prescribe.
Admittedly the clause says he has to consult the board, but that is all he has to do. He can consult the board, but if the board says, "Sorry, Minister, we do not

335
agree", he can still give them instructions to carry it out.
We have been told time and time again that it is the purpose of this Government not to interfere with the general management of nationalised industries. We have this power here for which there is no criterion for the reserve power. That is why I proposed the amendment for some form of inquiry. The Minister has repeatedly said that this is a reserve power, that I can trust the Secretary of State. But I remind your Lordships, as I said on Committee stage, that whatever may be the merits of the present Secretary of State he may not always be there; other Secretaries of State might like to use this power, and instructions can be given under this clause which are not necessarily a reserve power. The claim that a thing is a reserve power when there are words in the Bill which do not make it a reserve power is surely something your Lordships must consider.
Time and time again it has been said, and I have always been told this when I have been dealing with resolutions and what is in a constitution, it is what is written down that matters, not all the speeches, not all the assurances. In this Bill quite definite powers are given to the Secretary of State which we regard as completely excessive. In the light of these points, in the light of the failure of the Government to agree to reasonable amendments, I move the amendment to delete the entire Clause 3.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I do not particularly like doing it. I appreciate it is part of the scheme which the Government have thought out, and as the Bill has been given a Second Reading we must try and help it to work. But I really feel that the power given to the Secretary of State to interfere in these matters of detail—not merely to tell the board what to do but to tell them how to do it, to tell them to dispose of things, even what price they are to get for them and so on—really involves the Minister in far too much interference. The noble Lord says—and I cannot challenge it because I do not carry these things in my head—that other nationalised industries have similar powers for the Minister. I know they do in some cases. I would have thought that the party opposite were on the whole rather opposed to that and preferred to think of the nationalised industries as being run by a competent board of management and that provided they kept within the Act which established them they should not be interfered with. Certainly there are always a great many complaints when Ministers issue instructions to the nationalised industries to do this, that or the other.
There is another point which has worried me about this. I think the Government will still say they do not want Parliament to get involved in the detailed day to day running of the nationalised industries. The Minister protects himself by saying he does not want to get involved in the detailed running of the industries. But surely if we give the Minister power to do these things we give Parliament, every Member of Parliament in this House and another place, the right to ask the Minister and to press the Minister to exercise these powers. This seems to me one of the great objections to giving Ministers these sort of blanket powers in
336
the running of nationalised industries. They really cannot logically then hide behind the smokescreen that they do not want to interfere. If Parliament thought that they should interfere they can press them to do so; they can say, "You have got the powers. We have the right to press you to use them".
For that and other reasons I am in support of this amendment. The Minister took the case of Sealink. If I may say so, it was not a very good case because Sealink is dealt with as the Railways Board shall secure, so the Railways Board already have that duty. If the Minister meant that if they failed in that duty he could exercise the powers that would be understandable. But these powers are not confined to forcing the Railways Board to do something they are required to do. In fact, they go quite the opposite way; they can even insist on the Railways Board doing something which they are not empowered to do, which they are forbidden from doing. That does seem to me a very wide power to give. That is why I felt that we should try and find some means of resolving any honest differences of opinion between the Minister and his advisers on the one hand and the board and their advisers on the other. I imagine any sensible Minister will try to resolve these things, but giving him these powers without any provision for machinery to try to resolve differences seems to me to invite a conflict between the Minister and the board, which is something we would all wish to avoid, whoever the Minister was.
Is it really impossible at this stage to find some means of resolving these honest differences of opinion? I would start with the assumption that the board probably know more about it than the Minister. But even leaving that on one side, if they have honest differences of opinion as to whether this particular part of the undertaking should be privatised (to use this horrid word) why should not there be some means of resolving them other than by the Minister saying, "I say you must, and that is the end of it". I wonder whether even at this late stage there could be any means of trying to avoid what otherwise one feels are likely to be from time to time very unpleasant head-on collisions.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not see why we should be so pessimistic. The scenario which noble Lords opposite have painted is certainly not one which I envisage at all. The fact is that the Government's whole policy is founded on their agreement with the board that something must be done to improve the prospects of their subsidiaries. This agreement is the keystone of the policy and has shaped the provisions which are now included in the Bill. If that had not been the case it would have been quite feasible for us to take a different approach and introduce a Bill transferring certain businesses to the ownership of the Secretary of State and empowering him to dispose of them as he thought fit, the whole of the proceeds going straight to the Exchequer, with some reduction in the board's debt to take account of the loss of the assets concerned. These are publicly-owned assets and that would have been a justifiable way to treat them. It would have given the Government direct control over the exercise. I do not deny that such a course would have raised some difficult problems or

337
that the legislation involved would have been much more complicated than that which we have before us. But it would certainly have been possible.
However, we have not chosen that course. Instead, we have looked for the common ground between the board and ourselves. We have tried to identify objectives and methods which are acceptable to both sides. We have agreed that the board should take the lead, consulting the Government as appropriate. It has been hinted in our early discussions of the Bill that it was a shot-gun marriage, that the board had no choice but to acquiesce. However, that is not so. Would anyone seriously believe that men of the experience and integrity of Sir Peter Parker and his fellow board members would have accepted such pressure without a fight?
When we say that we want to proceed in agreement with the board, we mean just that. The board understand and accept the Government's position. They know that we shall not fiddle the rules to allow the subsidiaries to escape public sector controls and yet to remain in board control. On the other hand, they also know that so long as they adhere to the agreed policy the Government will be perfectly happy to let them decide, consulting the Secretary of State as necessary, how to carry it out. So the board have the initiative and they have a large degree of discretion as to how they implement the policy. It seems to me that this was a big concession for the Government to make and it is not one that has been sufficiently recognised by those who oppose Part I of the Bill.
The noble Lords opposite have asked why, if the Government and the board are proceeding in agreement, we do not trust the board sufficiently to do without powers of direction. The answer is that the Government must take measures to protect their own position. The Government are promoting Part I of the Bill specifically to ensure that a particular set of events, a series of privatisations—and I agree with the noble Lord about that word, but there it is—will take place. Fortunately, there is joint agreement on that policy, but it is only right and sensible that both parties—the board and the Government—should have the ability to see it carried out. If Clause 3 were removed from the Bill, as this amendment proposes, the Government, having left matters in the hands of the board, would be without any remedy if the board went back on its agreement with the Government. I do not believe for one moment that the board, in fact, would do this, but the Government have obviously to take account of the possibility. That is why the powers of direction are in the Bill. I can say with absolute sincerity that we neither expect nor want to use these powers. But we insist that it is right that we should have them in reserve.
I have been asked to give examples of when these powers might be used. That is difficult because it is a hypothetical matter. But I suppose that the most obvious example of their potential use would be if the board decided not to proceed with the privatisation of a particular business, or part of a business, for reasons which did not seem to the Government to be valid. Another situation in which they might be used could be if the board had made little progress with implementing the policy and chose to reject opportunities to get in private capital for no good reason. As I have said,
338
I do not think that that will, in fact, happen. Indeed, the board have already made an excellent start by disposing of a controlling interest in some of their Scottish hotels. But I say again that the Government have to protect their position.
It is true that the powers in this clause are wide-ranging; they have to be. It is self-evident that if the Government are to be able to carry through the policy in the face of the board's unwillingness to do so, they have to be able to direct the board to do the things that the board would themselves have done if they were acting of their own volition. It is important that the powers should be clear and unambiguous, and that they should be seen by all to be capable of effective use without inviting wrangles about the legal validity of any direction which might be given. The result is that the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 3 more or less mirror those of the board in Clause 1.
I do not think that I should go on at length. I shall sum up by saying yet again that these are reserve powers and we hope and fully expect that it will not be necessary to use them. But we do insist on the right to have them in order to protect the Government's position. If it does prove necessary to use them we shall certainly do so. But we have no intention of using these powers in an underhand or vindictive way or in a way which damages the interests of the board's main activity—the railway—or of the businesses themselves, or of their staff. We shall try to use them, if it becomes unavoidable to do so, in a way which will leave the board the maximum of discretion. This is a fundamental part of the whole Bill and I know that both the noble Lords opposite who have spoken on it realise that. Therefore, I hope that they will understand why we could not possibly accept the amendment that the clause be left out. I hope that they will not press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I make it absolutely clear that there is nothing in this amendment to challenge the main principle of this part of the Bill, otherwise I would have tabled quite a number of amendments to deal with the question of subsidiaries. Those issues were dealt with in Committee.
The board is given quite definite powers under Clause 1. Then, under Clause 3, the Government proceed to take away those powers. Despite their expertise in these matters and what is best for their undertaking, the Secretary of State can give them clear instructions to proceed in a certain way. What is more, he can proceed to give instructions to the board to act contrary to the duties and powers of the board under the 1962 Act.
The noble Lord has made a very reasonable speech, but we have to deal with what is actually contained in the Bill—in the clause. The clause deals with the power of directions: the power of directions, if the Secretary of State so desires. There are no criteria laid down. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the board know only too well that the Government would not fiddle the rules. I am not suggesting that the present Secretary of State would do so, but there are powers in the clause for any Secretary of State to do that if he so desired. If the clause is deleted the board will still have the powers which the Government want to give them under Clause 1.

339
I believe that this is such an important principle—and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, agrees with me—that we ought to delete this clause and then, if the Government feel that they want to come in to lay down criteria for the reserve power, they themselves could introduce an amendment to lay down the criteria for using it at Third Reading. There is an absence of criteria for using the reserve power, and we cannot obviously pass a clause which relies upon good faith irrespective of the words which are contained in the clause. Therefore, I must insist on the House declaring its view on this matter.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Loudoun, C.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Barrington, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bernstein, L.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Bishopston, L.

Peart, L.

Blease, L.

Phillips, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Garner, L.

Simon, V.

George-Brown, L.

Stedman, B.

Greenway, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

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

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eccles, V.

Allerton, L.

Elibank, L.

Auckland, L.

Elles, B.

Avon, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falkland, V.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrier, L,

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colwyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Croft, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cross, V.

Kintore, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyle, L.

340

McFadzean, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Shannon, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sharples, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stamp, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Northchurch, B.

Swinfen, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Onslow, E.

Vaizey, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vivian, L.

Portland, D.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Reigate, L.

Westbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Royal Assent
6.47 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Matrimonial Homes and Property Act,

Industrial Diseases (Notification) Act,

Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act,

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act,

Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act, Fisheries Act,

Horserace Betting Levy Act,

Insurance Companies Act,

Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act,

Social Security Act,

Representation of the People Act,

British Railways (Pension Schemes) Act,

Whitehaven Harbour Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act.

Transport Bill
6.48 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance of services to Islands
. If ever Sealink consider it commercially advisable to reduce the sea transport services which it provides to any island off the mainland of England, it shall consult with the Secretary of State before putting such a reduction of services into effect and the Secretary of State shall further consult with such public bodies or persons as he may deem to be concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to provide a long-term safeguard for islands which will be dependent upon Sealink. It in no way suggests that Sealink is not providing an excellent service at this moment in time, and it looks perhaps 10 or even 15 years ahead when circumstances may not be quite so good for Sealink.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that most

341
of Sealink's operations are well-buttressed with alternative means of sea transport; that is, the routes that it runs to Ireland and the routes that it runs to the Continent. As regards the routes that it runs to all the islands, in the case of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, they are supplemented by air routes, and in the case of the Isle of Wight, they are it is true supplemented by a measure of private enterprise. But in the case of the Isle of Wight—and your Lordships will be aware that that is where I live—we find that two-thirds of the routes providing transport for motor vehicles are owned by Sealink and three-quarters of those providing transport for passengers are owned by Sealink. Therefore, a large proportion of the amount of the sea transport is in the hands of Sealink. Whereas the routes across the Channel and to Ireland are not of themselves vital to the ordinary, orderly everyday life of the places that they go to, in regard to the islands to a large extent they are.
In the case of the Isle of Wight, where we have no supplementary transport in the way of the air and just a small amount of hydrofoil and hovercraft transport ability, the vast preponderance of the position occupied by Sealink is important. Sealink at the moment is providing an excellent service, and indeed it is prospering. It is planning all sorts of development, which is much to be encouraged and admired, but one cannot be sure that in the more distant future things will always go so well for this company. It might indeed have a setback in—shall we say—the early 1990s because some unwise person has driven a tunnel under the Channel. That would take away a lot of its routes in that direction and it might say that it had to pull its horns in. Then perhaps it would say, "We have to make economies in all places, and this w ill mean reducing the services to the Isle of Wight".
As I have endeavoured to show, the services to an island are much more vital to its everyday life than the services on the main routes which provide chiefly for tourists going back and forth. They are not vital for the everyday living as they are to an island. It would apply particularly to the Isle of Wight, but probably also to the Channel Islands, and I should like this to be thought of in that context as well. The regularity of service is important and has a bearing quite different from the other functions which Sealink performs. It is to safeguard that position in the future, and in circumstances that at present cannot be foreseen, that I propose this amendment.
My noble friend the Minister said in favour of Clause 3, which we have just debated, "These are really reserve powers which we would never use in an ordinary sort of circumstance, and we cannot foresee its happening in the immediate future". I am really saying the same sort of thing to him. What I seek by my amendment is reserve powers for at the moment an unforeseen situation which might arise 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years ahead. It would be a safeguard to have something of this sort in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I see that my noble friend, who is always so assiduous and ever watchful on all matters concerning the Isle of Wight—they are fortunate indeed to have someone who takes such a regular and
342
on-going interest in their affairs—has tabled this further amendment because he is properly concerned regarding local interests. However, I wonder whether the scope of his present amendment may be wider than he thinks, since it may apply not only to the Isle of Wight and to the Channel Islands, but also perhaps to Ireland as well—since that might, I suppose, be called an island off the mainland of England! I am sure the inhabitants of these islands should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for his attention to their interests.
My noble friend is evidently worried that when in the private sector, no longer bound by the present requirements for advance notification of closure of shipping services, Sealink might decide abruptly to end one of its three services to the Isle of Wight. I have to say—and I am sure he will not be surprised to hear—that I do not share his fears. Sealink are a responsible shipping company, well aware of the importance the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight attach to their services. They are not likely to take lightly any decision to change the present pattern of their services. I am confident that any proposals of the sort my noble friend has in mind would be heralded by reasonable consultation—in particular with the local transport authority, the county council, with whom Sealink hold regular meetings so that precisely issues of this sort can be aired.
But in fact Sealink's intentions for the Isle of Wight routes are more for expansion than for closure. The House has recently given its approval to a Sealink proposal to carry out works at Fishbourne, so that bigger ships can be used on the Portsmouth-Fishbourne route. As my noble friend knows, similar works are planned by the harbour authority, with Sealink's support, at Yarmouth. These proposals clearly show Sealink's confidence in the potential of their Isle of Wight services. I know of no proposal for the closure or severe curtailment of any of Sealink's services to the island.
It really is for this reason that I do not think that my noble friend's amendment is necessary. Moreover, it raises an issue of principle for the Government. It is our intention that when in the private section Sealink should be treated like any other private sector shipping and harbour operator. This is the main thrust of our policy, to give the board's subsidiaries a chance to compete on equal footing with other businesses. To single out Sealink and its services to offshore islands from among all the shipping services provided by other commercial operators for special restrictions would not be in keeping with this policy.
I take the last point that my noble friend made about reserve powers. I think he would agree with me—he will say if he does not; he usually says what he thinks—that when he speaks of having reserve powers in case the unforeseeable happens he does so in not quite the same way that I was making the point on the last matter. Of course, in the case of a trading company, which this is, one cannot foresee what in 15 years or so may be the position; but then I did say that anybody who was faced with a situation of that kind would have reasonable consultation. I am satisfied for myself—and I have thought carefully about this—that in fact there is no need for the concern which my noble friend expresses. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I briefly intervene with a warning. There is no reason why Sealink should not perhaps become a monopoly in the foreseeable future, and once there is a monopoly in transport then the people who run that monopoly business can withdraw their service, whether it be on the land or on the sea. As I know very well, in parts of Scotland a firm, having taken everything over, has withdrawn its bus monopoly, with consequent great deprivation to people living in that part of Scotland. This is only a warning. Agreeing entirely with my noble friend Lord Mottistone's reasons underlying this amendment, I should have thought it helpful if reserve powers even for an independent company were put into this Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support, and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will take note of what can happen. We are talking over a period of 25 years or so, if not more. These things do happen. I fully accept the fact that my amendment is not perfectly drafted and that we might be doing more favour to Ireland than perhaps I was intending, but, with all that, there is an underlying problem here which perhaps in the event is going to be so far ahead that most of us in the Chamber at the moment will cease to have worried about it because we shall not want to travel any more. There is this problem—I know it has happened in parts of Canada, for example—and it is the sort of thing that must be watched. People can fall on hard times and withdraw what are thought to be essential services by those who are provided with them. Having aired the point fully, I shall read in Hansard carefully what my noble friend said and perhaps even make it all available to the people of the Isle of Wight, so that in due course, if this problem ever arises, they can throw it back at the Minister of the day and perhaps even at Sealink. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if at this stage we adjourned the consideration of the Report stage until 7.45 and meanwhile took further business. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 7.45.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Indecent Displays (Control) Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
At this stage of the Bill I wish briefly to thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to it. We have had some interesting debates, mainly promoted by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The House has shown itself clearly in favour of the Bill, and for that I am very grateful.
This is a small Bill but it sets out to cure an obvious
344
evil in the display of pornographic material which now appears in shop windows and bookstalls and undoubtedly disturbs the public, especially parents with young children whose minds are caught and disturbed by such pornographic displays. That is all the Bill does. It does not set out to cure the evil of the nature of the material; that is a much bigger and more difficult subject, and I believe that a good deal of the interesting comments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, particularly related to the Williams Report, were directed at the major problem of a satisfactory definition of "obscenity".
I am sure my noble friend Lord Belstead would be the first to agree that the law at present is unsatisfactory and almost unenforceable in that respect. But here we are not trying to cure that major problem, and clearly that is not an issue which a Private Member could take up in a Private Member's Bill. That is a very difficult issue for the Government and I still hope that somehow at some time the Home Secretary may be able to tackle it, but that is for another day.
This small measure has had a really astonishing degree of support in the other place. It will I believe be a really useful contribution in a narrow sphere and it is in that spirit that I say my valedictory words for it, again with grateful thanks to noble Lords on all sides for being so helpful in supporting it during its passage through the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the Bill now comes to its inglorious conclusion. I say that with the fullest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who has sponsored it with good nature, ability, skill and success. But nothing downgrades a Bill more in your Lordships' House than to put on its concluding stage during the supper break. The inference underlying the selection of this time to deal with the conclusion of the Bill is that we should not spend too much time on it, and only a few moments ago the normal supper interval of one hour was reduced to 45 minutes. I am not sure what happens if we exceed the time.
Lord Belstead: And this is only the first course, my Lords.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Nevertheless, I have a few remarks to make especially about the general atmosphere in which it has been necessary to consider the Bill. Putting it on at this moment puts an additional constraint on the time of the House to deal with it. After all, noble Lords have gone for their refreshment and they will come back at the appointed time impatiently waiting for the resumption of the main business of the evening, which promises to be rather long.
I had a good deal to say about the main issue of time on another Bill earlier this week. Indeed, there could be, or could have been, similar anxieties about this Bill that we have with the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill which awaits its Committee stage tomorrow. This Bill and the one that is coming on tomorrow does raise in serious form the whole procedure of dealing with

345
Private Members' Bills. This Bill, like the Zoo Bill, has to get back to another place by the end of next week if it is to become law because we have amended the Bill slightly and the formalities of approving the Lords' amendments have to be gone through in another place on the last day allotted to Private Members' Bills in the House of Commons for this Session.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will allow me to say that he has had in his mind, quite properly, the whole time the fact that if this Bill were substantially amended to raise fresh controversy about it in another place, it would be in dire peril in the latter stages of its progress through another place. Indeed, if the amendments were substantial—and the two we have made are not substantial—determined obstruction in another place might easily wreck it. I hope something can be done to remedy situations which in this House amount to undue pressure on the House of Lords in our parliamentary procedure. That is to be deplored and resented and it should be remedied, and I hope consideration will be given to it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is all so pitiful, my Lords.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, accepted were not substantial, though both of them were important, and I do not think they will cause any serious difficulty next week. I hope not. Nevertheless, it would not be unfair to say that in considering the Bill and the amendments I moved to it, considerations of time have been present in the minds of noble Lords who have wanted to see the measure through.
I am not suggesting that the amendments were not adequately considered on their merits, but when considering the merits of a matter and one is being pressurised on time, that is not the most congenial atmosphere in which to carry out our debates. I have no complaints. I am just uttering a caution about the way in which things can go in your Lordships' House.
I wish to refer to another hazard which the noble Lord has overcome. There was an occasion during the Committee stage when there were not enough noble Lords in the Chamber for a Division to be effective. Had I known that at the time, and had I pressed for a Division, the Committee stage would have come abruptly to an end. Happily, I did not know. I am glad to have been spared the temptation of employing obstruction as an obstacle to the Bill. I do not like legislation by lottery, which this is, but I do not like defeating legislation by obstruction.
In relation to some of the amendments that I moved some noble Lords—not the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—suggested that all the ground had been covered in another place and that there was no need to spend a lot of time in your Lordships' House going over it all again; the matter had been fully debated in another place. That is no reason for cutting short our consideration of a Bill that comes from another place. After all, the Transport Bill, which is the main business to be resumed in the House this evening after the supper break, has already been gone over in another place. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is the last person to complain that what has been gone over in another place should not be gone over again, because he has defied another place on seat belts and he has
346
triumphed over the opinion of another place which had considered the matter over and over again. So I think that—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to remind him that he has just acquitted me of charging him in regard to repeating debates that have been gone over in another place. I have made no such charge against him; others may have done.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am merely making the point that none of us should refrain from going over a Bill that comes from another place simply because it has already been gone over.
I turn to another relevant matter. When we were considering the Bill on Report another place was for the first time debating the Williams Report and its recommendations, which came out in 1979. It was quite interesting that that debate coincided with our own. I do not know whether members of the Williams Committee will feel very comforted by what was said in that debate. I believe that all chairmen of committees who undertake valuable public service must derive their satisfaction from the work that they do and not from what is done with what they say. I speak from experience. The only committee of which I was chairman and about which I could feel any real satisfaction was that on teachers' pay in 1974. Then I realised that if it is morals, you get nowhere, but if it is money, there is somebody waiting for it—and indeed they waited and got quite a lot. So I think that we should on our own account add thanks to the Williams Committee for what it did.
I turn to another interesting occurrence which I think is relevant to the Third Reading of the Bill; namely the demonstration that I happened to see outside the magistrates' court in Horseferry Road. I thought, "Ah! here we are, a private prosecution. Now let's see what we make of it". The police were on duty. There were cameras there, the media men were clustering around, with the police telling them to go away or stand further back. I do not know for whom they were waiting. I do not know whether they were waiting for the absentee prosecutor, or whether they were hoping to see the defendant. I do not know for whom they were waiting, but it was quite an occasion. When I see a case such as that—with an absentee prosecutor who has not even seen what is alleged, but who got a solicitor to go to the show as the principal prosecution witness, and with the committal proceedings becoming embroiled in the obscurities and the tangle of the law—I have very little confidence in the sacred principle of private prosecutions. Incidentally, I have noticed how some noble Lords and some Members of another place have stuck firmly to the right of the citizen to maintain his right to go to the courts on his own if those who should enforce the law neglect or refuse to do so.
I now turn to another subject about which I feel deep concern. I recall that under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 no right is given to the citizen to undertake a private prosecution. Who can prosecute under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876? The police?—No. The Attorney-General?—No. The Director of Public Prosecutions?—No. A prosecution may not be taken

347
under that Act except with the consent of the Home Secretary, and so the sovereign state of science has a law unto itself. The citizen may not enter, he may not prosecute; it is a closed shop. I believe that we should bear in mind these little inconsistencies, if they are not little hypocrises, when we look at the rights of the citizen in different contexts.
I shall conclude my speech with a few reflections upon the main substance of the Bill. So many people are concerned with sex more than with any other part of human nature. Sex and sexual equipment is the sum and substance of indecency and obscenity in the minds of many. The older people grow, the more they appear to disapprove of what they see, hear and read about sex. They appear to think a great deal more about sexual offences than about sex, which probably is understandable. Celibate priests are preoccupied with the subject. While the Victorian hypocrises still linger, the battle between crabbed age and youth becomes more fierce. Well, the young will soon be older, and it will be interesting to see—if we do—whether they can get these primitive problems of their own human nature into better balance than our own generation appears to have done.
Meanwhile, I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and indeed the sponsor in another place, on the most agreeable way in which they have steered it into port in both Houses. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I hope that the Bill will relieve people of normal sensibilities of embarrassing experiences without setting in motion the harassing tactics of professional moralists.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby will go down in history as a person who protected animals from cruelty. I do not understand why a man of such gentle nature should impose such cruelty upon his fellow Peers when he speaks. The sole purpose of my rising is to contratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on the manner in which he has dealt with this important little measure in this House. He has done this in a way which those of us who know him would expect of him. It has been done with that cool, calm courtesy which is part and parcel of the noble Lord. I think this is an important little measure. I am expressing a personal view from the Opposition Front Bench. I consider it is a very desirable measure, and the sooner it goes on to the statute book, the better.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on the way in which he has brought the Bill through your Lordships' House. At the same time I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it is not only Members of this House of his generation who have taken offence at some of the displays that we see in shops, not only in Soho, but in other parts of London and in other parts of this country. As I said at Second Reading, not only my generation but people younger than I am have taken offence.
I have a strong objection to people making a lot of money through voyeurism, and as far as I have seen the noble Lord has attempted throughout this Bill to
348
protect voyeurs and make it more difficult for people with young families to take their children throughout our towns and villages without suffering a considerable amount of offence in some instances. I have no intention to be offensive to him, but just to point out what I have gathered from what he has said during this Bill.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, as there is nobody else present on the Liberal Benches and this is not a party issue, I should like to take the opportunity to say two things. One is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on a Bill in respect of which, as I think he knows, I approve of everything except that in my opinion, which is not a Liberal opinion, it touches only what I may call the tip of the "viceberg". The only time I intervened in the debates on this Bill was to try to stress the fact that this is a Bill about indecency and not obscenity; and I entirely agree that that is a much more difficult matter which, as has been agreed all round the House, should be taken up by the Government.
The second thing is, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on what I thought was a heroic and titanic effort to get people to consider this Bill seriously, which he did against great odds and which I thought he did admirably and with great good humour at the end. The fact that I disagreed with everything he said is balanced by the fact that I agreed with everything he said in his speech on animals the next day; and I think that if anybody apart from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and those who introduced the Bill deserves, congratulations, it is the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Having said that, I will sit down.
Lord Monson: My Lords, on this Bill I do not stand in total opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, as I do on another matter which we shall be debating shortly. Rather I stand, one might say, at right-angles to him; that is, I sympathise with the Bill, but I also have strong reservations. In the case of both measures my opposition has, of course, absolutely nothing to do with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, himself, but stems from my concern about any further erosion of our liberties in this country.
Although I acknowledge that this Bill is well-founded, I believe it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Two or three years ago I would not have said that; I would have entirely agreed with the noble Lord who spoke from the Government Back-Benches. Two or three years ago, in the case of almost every newsagent's you walked into you were confronted with endless vistas of bare flesh, not only at one's own eye level, which was bad enough, but at children's eye level, which was worse still. But since then there has been an entirely voluntary self-censorship, for the most part. Newsagents have, of their own free will, put these magazines up on the top shelf, where one does not see them unless one looks for them, and most of us do not look for them.
I may add that in this respect we are far better off than in most of the traditionally strait-laced Mediterranean countries—in Catholic countries, such as Spain and Portugal, since the death and overthrow of Franco and Caetano, respectively; Italy and Malta; Orthodox countries like Greece and the southern part

349
of Cyprus, and even Islamic Turkey. Everywhere you go in these countries you see bookstalls featuring these "girlie" magazines. It is not very agreeable, certainly, but I think people there believe that it is part of the price one has to pay for a free society.
I think it all depends entirely on exactly where one draws the line. As I said at an earlier stage, the word "indecent" means a thousand different things to a thousand different people, and I was not challenged on that. However, I can only conclude by saying that I hope that the side-effects of the Bill will not be as bad as are feared, and I wish the Bill well.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, all of us, I think, or at least most of us, are in favour of the basic objective of this Bill, though some of us have some worries about it in detail. My main concern about it—almost my only concern, I think—is the freedom it gives to the introduction of private prosecution. I was a little worried that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—and I think the Government take the same view—felt unable to accept an amendment put down for the purpose of trying to limit the amount of private prosecution which was possible under the Bill. I myself intended to put down an amendment to that effect at Report stage. In fact, I did put it down; unfortunately, I had to leave the House at 12 o'clock. I had hoped that it would come on before that time, but unfortunately it came on at 10 past 12.
My noble friend Lord Houghton was kind enough to refer to the amendment, but naturally enough he preferred one in his own name which had a similar purpose; and I have no reason to suppose that as his eloquence could not carry the day, my own amendment could have fared any better. I do not think it would. I think the limitation of private prosecution which both my noble friend and I sought has been resisted. I am sorry it has been resisted, because it seems to me to be the main imperfection, or perhaps even the only imperfection, in a Bill the purposes of which otherwise seem to me to be admirable.
We have seen recently what can happen in the case of unlimited private prosecution—not unlimited, but in the case of private prosecution in this very difficult area. The ingenuity of private prosecutors is considerable indeed, as we have seen. Even when we carried through both Houses of Parliament, under the Theatres Act, an intention that prosecutions should be disallowed in the case of so-called indecent displays in the theatre, and that they should be allowed only with the fiat of the Attorney-General, apparently a way round that has recently been discovered, and I think that that is what my noble friend Lord Houghton was referring to just now.
So I think there is here opening up the possibility of private prosecution. I hope it will not be unreasonably and unfortunately exploited; and it is with that hope that I conclude what I have to say, adding my own small tribute to the manner in which the Bill has been carried through the House by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I repeat again that its general purposes are, I think, wise and proper, and are generally supported, and I hope that the fear I have about the possible exploitation of the Bill will not in fact be proved justified when it becomes an Act.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I just add my voice to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the other stages of this Bill, to say that the Government believe this to be a thoroughly worthwhile measure. The discussions we have had in your Lordships' House, and the welcome it has received from your Lordships, have served to confirm and strengthen the Government in that opinion. I should also like to express my appreciation for the skilful manner in which my noble friend Lord Nugent has piloted the Bill through the House. I am sure that not only the sponsor of the Bill, Mr. Sainsbury, in another place, but the House as a whole is greatly indebted to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Countryside (Scotland) Bill
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 33. (The Earl of Selkirk.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we have not long and I will not be long. I want to express my appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl has conducted the proceedings of this Bill. There is a representative of the Government here. I am sorry not to see the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. This is not really a Private Member's Bill; it is a Government Bill. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is no longer in the House because he might have been interested in what I have to say about Private Member's Bills. If you want a Private Member's Bill through late, make it a Scottish one! If you can get the Whips and every unruly Back-Bencher to keep their voices down and no one shouts, "Object!" on a Friday, then it gets through without a Second Reading. It then goes to a specially set-up Scottish Committee. That happened to this Bill. It does not go to the bottom of the list in another place. It goes straight to the Scottish Committee, and within one week this Bill was back for Report. That is why we have got it here.
The noble Earl was worried about getting it by the 4th July. Well, he has it. I will not oppose it. But I want to say that when you get a Private Member's Bill of 17 clauses and two schedules, it ceases to be a Private Member's Bill. When it takes power from the Government and gives it to a Quango, it is not a Private Member's Bill; it is a Government Bill. And when we have a particular clause which gives another power to a regional authority at a time when the Government want regional councils and district councils not to spend money, it does not seem like a Private Member's Bill that has in it any consistency with Government policy. I want to say only this.
There are some things in the Bill which are good but the main thing in the Bill to which I object is the new conception of what are called regional parks. I think it is a misnomer. The idea goes wider than the region and we have not discussed properly the whole policy of parks in Scotland. We have public parks,

351
district parks, countryside parks, forestry parks and, now, we are to have regional parks. Yet, we have just had a report from the noble Lord, Lord Stodart—it was published in January—saying that all parks should be transferred to districts in Scotland. And, indeed, this started on its way. In the middle of this Bill, the Government came out with an interim finding in respect of regional parks saying that the districts should have all the parks but regions should have some place; and they are consulting about it.
It is mistimed. We should have waited. It is too important, I think, in respect of Scotland, where we have not got national parks, that we should have this interim, half-way measure of regional parks which conflicts with some of the countryside parks which are already established. The responsibility for that is not the noble Earl's. Probably more information was received in this House than in another place. I have no desire to stand in the way of the Bill.
The other silly thing, I think, was the conception of quiet areas in the countryside, trying to prevent noise; but only if it is a certain kind of noise, that is, the noise of vehicles or aeroplanes, and that is subject to certain exceptions. It would have been better to have forgotten that and thought it all out. That must be one of the Private Member's ideas rather than a Government idea. Again, I congratulate the noble Earl for his working on the Bill. He did not lose his temper when we were short of time; he got rather despondent when he felt that there were another 26 amendments to come from one, Lord Ross of Marnock. He need not have worried. I think too much of him to be obstructive in that way. The Government is a different matter. I try to persuade them that some of the things I put down are right.
I am sorry for my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for the "stick" he took and being remembered for his efforts on that. He will be remembered in Scotland for the Houghton Committee report on teachers. If he likes to come in during our prolonged consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill he will find that in the reorganisation and negotiations for teachers' salaries the name "Houghton" will come up. It has already done so on Second Reading and it will do so again. That is one of the things for which we remember him. if he is interested in Scottish Bills then let him introduce one and he will get more satisfaction than with some of the other efforts that he has made. I support the Third Reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am grateful to the House for supporting this Bill. I cordially disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in saying that there is anything degrading about taking Bills in the dinner interval. I think there are advantages. You know when they are going to happen, you know within a reasonable time when the Bill is likely to come on. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his examination of this Bill. I agree that it is a new concept and it is proper that it should be examined. I do not think that it makes all that difference whether it is a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill. They all look the same when you have finished with them. There is no difference on the statute book.
352
I do not want to go again into the argument about regional parks but I do not think there is conflict. I think in the event there will be no conflict. I am sorry that the noble Lord is still worried about that noble object of creating quiet. That is something we all long for. It may not succeed but the object of creating quiet is something which everyone would commend. This is a small Bill. It treads new ground. It will extend the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside and increase the ability to have access to it; and, importantly, it will provide some protection against vandals. This is very useful. We hope it will be operated sensibly and I think that if it is, it will be of considerable value in the future. I thank the noble Lord for his assistance in this, and I hope, as I am sure he hopes, that this will be a valuable step forward.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.37 until 7.45 p.m.]

Transport Bill
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 3 [Powers of Associated British Ports]:
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 34, leave out lines 16 to 18.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Schedule 3, to which this is an amendment, deals with the powers of Associated British Ports, which is to be the successor to the British Transport Docks Board. The lines that I am proposing should be deleted read:
"Associated British Ports may carry on at its harbours the activities of a ship's agent".
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, moved an identical amendment. Noble Lords who were present at the time may remember that there was a rather diffuse discussion. It became involved and the noble Lord eventually withdrew the amendment, saying that he would seek to raise the matter later. He has evidently had slightly different thoughts because he has now put down Amendment No. 7 which is a modification of his original amendment. I think that his original amendment was the right one. I hope that I can persuade the House that this is so.
We have to consider what are the activities of a ship's agent. I suggest that a port authority is inappropriate to act in this capacity. The ship's agent has a great many duties to perform. I have been a ship's agent so I know something about it. For instance, they have to be able to arrange for the provision of stores for the ship; they have to arrange for repairs to be undertaken. There may be a sick seaman who has to be landed into hospital. There may even be trouble on board and the police or others concerned have to have access. Of course, a port authority could set up a department which could deal

353
with these matters, but I should have thought it was quite inappropriate for them to do so.
There is the still more important issue, which is looking after the ship in port. In this respect, the ship's agent may well be in discussion and occasionally perhaps in argument with the port authority. The master may not think that the berth is safe; or the cargo requires to have three cranes to discharge it and the port have provided only two. If the port authority, as in some cases, is also the supplier of labour for handling the cargo, then the agent has to arrange with the supplier of that labour for the right number of gangs, at the right time, and so on.
I do not think it is at all reasonable for the port authority to act as agent and have to deal with itself. It could lead to considerable difficulties. I was hoping that some of our noble colleagues learned in the law might be present; but, as a layman, I suggest that there is a real difficulty about an agent who is also the person who is dealing with himself, so to speak. One can imagine circumstances where some difficulty has arisen. I would remind your Lordships that business of this kind is carried out on the telephone; it is not something about which people write long documents. Let us suppose that a difficulty arises and afterwards there is a mishap of some kind and quite a serious claim arises. We shall find that there is some uncertainty whether the action taken or not taken by the port authority was taken or not taken by the port authority in its capacity as a port authority or in its capacity as agent for the ship.
I can imagine tremendous legal difficulties arising from this confusion. This seems to me a positive objection to what these lines provide. I began by saying that I thought the duty of a ship's agent was inappropriate; but when we come to the point that I have just raised I think that it is undesirable. There is no real difficulty—I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is going to say—in finding a ship's agent. They do not have to be established at the port. This country is a fairly small country. The foreign owner, for example, probably has one principal agent that he knows, perhaps in London or in Liverpool. If the ship turns up at King's Lynn he can perfectly well arrange to send a person off to deal with it at King's Lynn. He does not have to be established there in order to do that.
The General Council of British Shipping have told me that they informed the Minister that they are quite happy about an assurance they have had as to the way the powers are to be used and no doubt the Minister will be telling us of that assurance. But, with great respect to the General Council, who are very old friends of mine, the foreign ship-owner is not represented there, and he perhaps has more interest in this matter than the British shipowner. There are also the interests of the chartered shipbrokers who are mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I suggest to the Government that they should look at this subject very seriously again between now and Third Reading. I do not think there is any real advantage to the Associated British Ports to have this power, and I cannot quite understand why they have asked for it. So far as I know, it is not a power that is exercised by any port authority, though there may be some case
354
that could be quoted which I do not know about. Certainly it is not a normal business.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in replying to an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and also one by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, spoke in the same breath about running road transport and acting as a ship's agent; but the two cases are completely different. If the port is running road transport, it is running it on behalf of the owners of the cargo and not on behalf of the ship, and it is the ship which has the contractual relationship with the port authority, not the owners of the cargo. So I think this provision is not only inappropriate but, for the reasons I have outlined, rather undesirable, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to look at it again very seriously.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, this is a similar amendment to the one that I put forward in Committee, and slightly different from the one I have now put down. I propose, if the Minister agrees, to speak in general terms to this amendment and to reserve the right to move my amendment if I am not happy about the outcome of this one.
The noble Viscount has given us a very graphic description of how a ship's agent operates. That in itself should give my noble friend cause to pause, because we did not previously have the benefit of the noble Viscount's contribution, and furthermore there was the confusion that existed over taking my amendment with another one. We did not have the benefit of his expert knowledge last time, and this might cause my noble friend to think that perhaps there is more to this matter than has appeared in the meantime. As the noble Viscount said, my concern is more for the chartered shipbroker. A ship's agent is a person distinct from a chartering agent. The latter is a professional person who requires skill, knowedge, training and practice; and the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers arranges training, examinations and qualifications. So they are different persons. As the noble Viscount said, a ship's agent is not in that sense a professional person.
I make this distinction because in the Journal of Commerce International, in its issue of 20th May 1981, the correspondent of that paper discussed the matter with a spokesman for the British Transport Docks Board. In questioning why this paragraph is in the Bill at all, and without my wishing to expand too greatly on this—the print is very small—the report says:
"Citing what he called a typical example"—
that is, why the paragraph is necessary—
"the spokesman said: `In Ayr a customer exporting a special type of stone to South Wales wanted us to quote for a complete service, including the ship chartering. Because of the way the law stands at the moment we were unable to do this. Other ship agents in the port weren't able to help this customer either '.".
To me that is very significant, because of course the other ship's agents in the port were not able to help because they were not qualified chartering agents. The passing of this particular paragraph within the Bill will not solve that problem. So, to start with, I would suggest to your Lordships that we have to get quite clear what we are talking about.

359
change. We spoke earlier about good intentions but about people and situations changing. I acknowledge that to be so. However, this is a categorical statement. I hope your Lordships will share my confidence that ABP, controlled as it will be by private investors, will exercise its ship's agency power in a sensible and commercially effective manner and in the best interests of its customers. To delete the ship's agency power, as we are being asked to do, would restrict unnecessarily the freedom of manoeuvre of a private sector business. This is the cause for concern.
I was impressed, however, by some of the points which were made by the noble Viscount. I cannot accept his amendment nor, indeed, that of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth had to say. He, too, has much knowledge in this area, so one has to listen carefully. Nevertheless, I cannot accept the amendments. The most I can do—I think noble Lords know from the not inconsiderable number of occasions when I have said this in the past that if I say it I will do it—is to talk to my colleagues about the subject, bring to their notice the points which all three speakers have made and find out whether they feel that in those circumstances we ought to do something different. If we so decide, there will be an opportunity to do something different. However, I cannot make any promise that we shall. It may well be that I shall have to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and both of my noble friends, in which case they must make up their own minds as to what they want to do. While, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments, I undertake, with that caveat, to look carefully at what has been said.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I would point out that when he spoke about the categorical assurances which had been given he was speaking about the assurances which had been given by the employers, the British Transport Docks Board, as presently constituted. Would not my noble friend agree that were he able to bring before your Lordships an assurance couched in similar terms from the employees' side of the dock industry, a number of us might possibly be better satisfied? Is he able to say what kind of response the employees' side of the industry has made to these provisions?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, for which I think I must ask at this stage, I cannot answer my noble friend on that point. However, I undertake to include consideration of it in the review to which I referred a few moments ago.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, again before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he is aware that his reply to the debate was most uncharacteristic of him and most inadequate? And is the noble Viscount aware that if he cares to test the feeling of the House I shall be delighted to support him?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, because of what the noble Lord the Minister has said I do not think that I want to make strictures of that sort. The Minister made a very sensible speech from his own point of
360
view. He left the door open—"agar"my noble friend says—which is where I would propose to leave it. I do not think, however, that his answer was complete. He did not deal at all with what I regard as a very important point: the conflict between the agent and the port authority where they are the same people. I do not understand how that is going to work. The agent will try to do the best for the ship and the port authority, quite rightly, will try to do the best thing for the port authority. In business one gets conflicts of interests and I do not believe that they can be satisfactorily settled by having the same person, as it were, representing both parties.
Apart from that, when I stood up to speak originally my intention was not to press the amendment at this stage—and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. This is a very important point and, with great respect, I do not believe that it is one that the Government understood—largely because discussion in Committee was curtailed in the way it was, for reasons which I understand. With your Lordships' permission, I would much rather withdraw this amendment in the hope that the Minister will take it back and consider it with the British Transport Docks Board and discuss whether it is worth inserting. I cannot believe that it is of any real value and it could give rise to difficulties.
As regards the memorandum and articles of association, I take the point that has been made. I fully understand that a statutory body must have specific powers. I was not arguing against that but against powers which I do not think the board should have—not the way in which the powers were expressed.
May I take this opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord the Minister. He wrote two very helpful letters to me on other matters, and I did not acknowledge them, but they did help me and in fact they helped the noble Lord the Minister because I dropped two points which otherwise I would have pursued.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 34, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that the services of a chartered shipbroker are not available in that harbour.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not have to repeat my speech, but I do have to repeat my dissatisfaction with my noble friend's reply to the remarks which have been made. I do not agree a bit with the noble Viscount, and therefore I should like to press my amendment.
8.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11, Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

361

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Killearn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McFadzean, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Croft, L.

Portland, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

de Clifford, L.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elibank, L.

Sharples, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trenchard, V.

Greenway, L.

Vaizey, L.

Gridley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 15 [Dissolution of National Ports Council]:
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) The powers and duties of the Council as defined in the Harbours Act 1964 shall pass to a National Ports Authority which shall be established and shall also keep under review the suitability and adequacy in relation to the trade of Great Britain, of the ports of Great Britain; review the discharge of their functions by the various ports authorities; consider how any port should be improved and what services and facilities should be provided at any port, and, as requested by the Secretary of State advise him, and at any time make recommendations to him, on any matter affecting the suitability, adequacy and efficiency of the ports.
( ) In accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) above ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one which we considered at the Committee stage, but on that occasion noble Lords will recall that we were debating it somewhere round about half past ten at night, so I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I deal with it at rather greater length than I had originally intended. Clause 15 abolishes the National Ports Council and I think everybody generally agrees that the council has been of great benefit to the industry and has been very helpful to successive governments. The 1980 Report of the council set out all its duties and functions. I will not go through them but noble Lords can take it from me—and I think the Minister will agree—that the National Ports Council had very extensive powers.
At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, agreed that since its inception the National Ports Council had brought a major improvement in the organisation and efficiency of the ports industry.
362
I then reminded noble Lords that only a few days earlier we had had the Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill whereby we all learned of the dire financial problems of the PLA and of Merseyside and we all know that there are severe financial problems in the Bristol docks.
In Committee I referred to what is known as the Rochdale Committee on the docks industry, which published its report in 1962, one complete chapter of which was devoted to the case for a National Ports Authority, and that is what this amendment proposes. Paragraph 52 of the Report recommended that a National Ports Authority should be established, with well-defined non-operational responsibilities. I will not weary the House by going through the whole of the 12 powers which the Rochdale Report suggested should be given to the National Ports Authority, although I have them listed if anyone should wish to have them. A number of these powers were given to the National Ports Council but that body is to be wound up under this Bill.
The points made in the amendment now before your Lordships are very much in line with the recommendation in the Rochdale Report for the powers of a National Ports Authority. The chairman of that committee was the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, from whom we heard in the Committee stage and in our debate today. The noble Viscount said that if I had moved this amendment 16 or 17 years ago he would readily have supported it, but he considered that there was no need for such an authority today. I respect very much what the noble Viscount, with his experience, has said, but since the Committee stage I have had the opportunity of re-reading the report to the Secretary of State for Transport on the ports industry, published in 1978.
It is a very interesting report. The Ports Council was asked to make a fundamental analysis of the state of the ports industry and to consider how plans for its strategic future should be developed. That was in 1978 and was many years after the Rochdale Committee had made its report. An introduction to the report states that the national objectives of the ports policy are to ensure that the ports are, and will be, adequate to handle the country's trade, that the ports make the best use of economic resources and that port undertakings individually are well organised and well managed. I suggest that those objectives require a body to carry out a continuing review of the industry.
Paragraph 32 of that report said that the local port organisations should be kept under review and there should be further measures of port grouping or port reconstitution where and when appropriate. If that view is held, it hardly fits in with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the industry should take as much responsibility as possible for its own affairs. Can one imagine that the industry itself would be liable to deal with port groupings or port reconstitution? It has always required an independent body to make such proposals. Paragraph 49 of the report says—and I must read this in full:
"Competition is a spur to efficiency but the extreme position of complete and absolute independence for all ports is wrong for a vital national service industry. Because of the special position of the ports there should generally be more co-operation and collaboration between them than there is today".

363
That is a report of 1978. I continue to quote:
"The council have been attempting to achieve this but, particularly in recent years, they have been thwarted to some extent in doing things they believe to be necessary to help the efficiency of the industry because of the influential opposition from within the industry, even though the council work in great amity and in many areas and with very many ports."
In the light of that criticism, made only in 1978, how can all this work be left to the industry itself to deal with? Paragraph 52 of the report refers to the need for action to be taken.
Then may I mention one final paragraph which dealt with the role of a central body. In paragraph 61 the report said—and I quote—
"The special nature of the industry and its responsibility to the nation makes it necessary to have a central and independent body such as the National Ports Council, with which it has been suggested the ports should be closely associated".
It went on to list eight main functions, some of which are included in the amendment which I am moving.
I will not go over what I said at Committee stage, except to say that the managing director of the British Transport Docks Board, the board which is now to manage Associated British Ports, has expressed concern at the state of the ports industry only this year. If we ally that to this comprehensive report of 1978, surely this justifies the amendment calling for a National Ports Authority. I hope the Minister will appreciate that this report of 1978—exactly three years ago—must be even more valid today, in view of the facts that we have of the financial situation of some of the ports and in view of the observations which have been made by the managing director of the British Transport Docks Board. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will recall that we recently debated an identical amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in fact has basically repeated, although at a somewhat more civilised hour, the same arguments as to why he favours the creation of a strong centralised ports authority; but I have to say that nothing I have heard him say tonight convinces me that the Government's decision to abolish the National Ports Council is misconceived. I will not repeat all that I said during the Committee stage, but there are just one or two points that I think I should emphasise.
First, as I have said before, in our view it is essential that those who manage and operate the ports industry should be given as much responsibility as possible for their own affairs. The Government are firmly of the view that the future health of the industry depends upon this. Second, the ports themselves have welcomed our decision to abolish the National Ports Council and have indicated that they are willing, and able, to tackle the problems now facing the industry. This is why we are abolishing the National Ports Council. There are strong and competitive ports in this country which, if they are given the opportunity, are capable of dealing with, and finding solutions to their problems. We recognise, certainly, that there is a challenge facing the industry, but the British Ports Association is enlarging and strengthening its organisation to meet this challenge.
364
On the other hand, what would the creation of a strong, centralised National Ports Authority achieve? In the first instance it would simply take major decisions away from the very people who should be directly responsible for their own affairs. In particular, inherent in the idea of a national ports authority is the creation of some sort of national ports plan. I know the noble Lord has said on a previous occasion that such a plan forms no part of this amendment. But in practice this is what would inevitably result from a national ports authority which would be charged with considering
"…how any port should be improved and what services and facilities should be provided at any port".
But the development of such a plan would seriously distort the ability of ports to operate in commercial competition with each other. Indeed, experience has proved that such a plan would not work in practice. Ports being a service industry must be able to react flexibly and quickly to changing commercial circumstances. As experience in other spheres has shown, this would be prevented by a national plan which would simply promote development at some ports while preventing it at others.
I mentioned the British Ports Association a few moments ago in another context. Two of the functions for which they are now responsible are research and training in the industry. My noble friend Lord Rochdale, so eminent in these matters, referred to these functions at Committee stage and expressed the hope that the association would carry them out very well. These are important functions, and I very much endorse my noble friend's views.
Lord Underhill's proposals for the future of the ports, in our view, offer no way for a commercial industry to operate. It is essential that the industry be given greater, not less, freedom to determine its affairs. I hope your Lordships will recognise that the creation of a national ports authority is not in the best interests of the industry, certainly as we see it. I say, in conclusion, that I understand the point the noble Lord makes. Indeed, I was interested in his reference to the 1978 report, which had not been quoted previously. But I still think on balance the strength of the argument lies in the one I have just put, and it is for that reason that we do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister has disposed of the 1978 report so simply. When we discussed this at Committee stage I did not refer to the 1978 Report. At that stage, frankly, I had not re-read it; I re-read it after the Committee stage, and it is very illuminating. Can this be left solely to the industry? The National Ports Council in this report of 1978, which was a report to the Secretary of State at that time, made it quite clear that proposals they had been trying to make had been thwarted by influential elements within the industry. How then can we propose that the industry itself should tackle these matters. I will not weary the House, but I have a list here of about ten reviews, some Royal Commissions, on the docks industry over the last 100 years. It has always required an outside body to deal with the situation. The Government are obviously adamant about this. I do not feel disposed

365
to divide the House at this stage, but it is an important issue on which I wish there had been a bigger attendance, because this is a vital issue for the future of the very important ports industry. I will not withdraw the amendment, but I will not press it to a Division.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think it would be helpful to him if I were to say another brief word about the 1978 report. I understand that what happened was that that report was instituted by the then Secretary of State, who asked the council to carry out consultations on it. The noble Lord may or may not be aware that those consultations had not been completed by the time of the last general election. The council when it did make the report to my right honourable friend late in 1979 advised in much less centralising terms. The 1978 report was, in effect at least, withdrawn. Clearly, one can interpret that in the way one would want to do, but I thought I should make the point because I had not said a great deal on it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The powers and duties of the Council as defined in the Harbours Act 1964 shall pass to the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister's views upon this. Now that the National Ports Council is to be abolished, and now that the House has defeated a proposal for a national ports authority, I should like the Minister to inform the House what will happen to all the powers the council has at the moment. We know that research and training are to be taken over by the industry. One would like to feel that all the other powers of the council are going to be dealt with and not just allowed to lapse. In this amendment I have asked that the powers and duties of the council, as laid down in the Harbours Act 1964 which dealt with the inception of the National Ports Council, shall pass to the Secretary of State. It is important that these powers should not be allowed to lapse. The National Ports Council has emphasised that if all these powers are to be taken over it will be necessary for some well-informed extra personnel to be attached to the department. I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, added his comments to that at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to refer to the future arrangements being made for the work which has been carried out in the past by the council. In the first place, I must emphasise that the amendment would run counter to our policy of making the industry more responsible for its own affairs. The fact is that almost all of the council's statutory functions are being abolished. In some cases this will mean that a function will no longer be carried out at all. For example, its duty to prepare a national ports plan. I have already explained that this has been a dead letter for many years and we think it would be wrong to perpetuate it. In other cases, for example, in research and training and in providing assistance to harbour authorities in the exercise of their functions, the responsibility has been taken over by the industry
366
itself through the British Ports Association. In two specific cases the Secretary of State is to take over a function from the council, namely, the collection of certain port statistics and decisions on objections against ship, passenger and goods dues.
In addition, the Secretary of State is repealing or reducing the scope of some of his own more detailed specific functions in relation to the ports industry, so that in general there will be less need for the individual specialised advice previously given by the NPC. He will be concentrating his interest on long-term and structural matters, and will work where possible in collaboration with the industry itself.
But one of the main tasks of the council has been to advise the Secretary of State, either on particular issues of the day or as part of his own exercise of specific functions, and in many cases the Secretary of State has been required to consult the council before exercising his functions. Examples are the requirement to consult the council on applications for harbour development, and about applications from harbour authorities for statutory powers by means of a harbour revision order. The effect of the amendment in respect of these functions, if taken literally, would be to create a very odd situation whereby the Secretary of State would have to consult himself before taking decisions on certain issues.
I should make it clear that the Bill does not in any way remove from the Secretary of State his responsibility for overall ports policy, and the powers which Ministers need to carry out strategic functions are being retained. Perhaps I could also refer back at this point to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rochdale at Committee stage, when he referred to the degree of expertise within my right honourable friend's department to deal with ports questions. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill referred to about six additional civil servants, and we consider that this number of full-time staff should be sufficient. In view of the need to reduce the size of the Civil Service, the posts are being filled by redeployment within the department, but there is a wealth of specialist advice within the Department which can be called upon as needed. If we need a particular expertise from time to time which is not available within the department, we shall of course obtain it on a consultancy basis. This is likely to be the most efficient way to proceed. The additional staff is considerably less than the 20 which was suggested by the NPC itself, but I emphasise that we are determined to keep to the minimum the Government's involvement in the affairs of the ports.
I am convinced that the Government's proposals to free the ports industry from detailed ministerial control and to make it responsible for its own affairs provide the best way forward. We feel that this amendment would perpetuate detailed ministerial interference in the industry and would deny it the freedom and responsibility it needs to manage its diverse operations effectively and to respond quickly to changing circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will at least feel that I have tried to explain to him the situation and answer his point as to what will happen. I gladly do so.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this was intentionally a probing amendment and I am grateful to the Minister

367
for the very helpful information which he has given me. It is helpful from two standpoints. First, it is helpful to know the Government's viewpoint and, secondly, it is helpful to be able to check very carefully what the noble Lord has said and to compare it with the powers of the National Ports Council, and with the powers that we suggested for the Ports Authority and to see whether or not the position is clear and whether we need to come back to this matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of the Harbours Act 1964]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 58, line 7, after ("stating") insert ("in the case of an order to which paragraph 4B above does not apply")
Page 58, line 12, after ("stating") insert ("in the case of an order to which paragraph 8B above does not apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be to the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together. These are very minor technical amendments to clarify the provisions dealing with the application of special parliamentary procedure to harbour revision and empowerment orders. I hope we can deal with them quite quickly.
As your Lordships will recall, under the provisions of amendments we debated in Committee, harbour revision and empowerment orders in respect of England and Wales are to be subject to special parliamentary procedure only it they are opposed when they are made, while orders for Scotland are to remain subject to special parliamentary procedure whether they are opposed or unopposed.
The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the application of paragraphs 4(3) and (6) of Schedule 6, which deal with the publication of notices when an order is made. In the case of English and Welsh orders the notice must state whether the order is opposed or unopposed; if the order is unopposed and therefore not subject to special parliamentary procedure, the notice must state when the order will come into operation. All Scottish orders, on the other hand, are to remain subject to special parliamentary procedure, and this already has its own commencement provisions under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. The amendments therefore provide that paragraphs 4(3) and (6) apply only to English and Welsh orders. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 59, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) A Minister, in deciding whether to make an order under this section, shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the balance then existing between the various kinds of relevant knowledge and experience represented by the members of the harbour authority in question.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This amendment deals with the point which I mentioned in Committee when we were considering the Motion that Schedule 6 should be
368
the sixth schedule to the Bill. The Minister—and I cannot now remember which noble Lord it was who answered me—was good enough to say that he did not think that there was very much in the point. I had to confess that I personally did not think that it was a matter of terrific importance, but I did say that I knew that the British Ports Association was still unhappy about it.
Since then I have had the benefit of some discussions with the British Ports Association as a result of which I have put down this amendment. The only question is: if the Minister—and this is rather complicated because it is either the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture in the case of fishery harbours—decides that he does not wish to continue to nominate members to port authorities, there was the fear that the withdrawal of ministerial appointments might upset the balance in some authority or other.
I questioned the British Ports Association as to whether they knew of any cases where this might happen. I was told of two or three cases where it was thought that if the ministerial appointments were withdrawn it would upset the general balance. For that reason we have suggested what I hope the Minister may think is a quite harmless and perhaps useful amendment which is that, "A Minister"—that means either the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture—
"in deciding whether to make an order under this section, shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the balance then existing between the various kinds of relevant knowledge and experience represented by the members of the harbour authority in question".
Just to remind your Lordships, because I mentioned this in Committee, if the Minister was making a harbour revision order and altering the constitution of the harbour, it would be subject to objections being made, and if objections were made there could be an inquiry. There is no provision for objections in this new paragraph of the schedule and that is why I am venturing to suggest that a Minister should bear this particular point of maintaining the balance of the various experiences represented on the port authority when deciding to exercise his power to cease to make appointments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for raising this matter again and I am very sorry that the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 are still a cause for concern to the British Ports Association. We have given assurances, both in correspondence and during the Commons Committee stage, as to the limited extent of the power and how we propose to exercise it. I hope that I can satisfy the noble Viscount, the British Ports Association and your Lordships on this occasion.
We have already explained, during Committee stage in this House, the limited scope of this power. Subsection (2) of the new Section 15A excludes from its application those port authorities to which the Secretary of State appoints all the board members, excluding ex-officio or co-opted members. In practice this means that the Secretary of State's powers of appointment to the major public trust ports, such as Dover, London, Forth and Tyne, are unaffected by the new power. The Secretary of State recognizes

369
the value of ministerial appointments to these ports where members are appointed, on an independent and unbiased basis, for their personal qualities and expertise rather than as representatives of particular interests. He will therefore continue to make appointments to the major commercial trust ports.
The appointments covered by the power are, on the other hand, almost entirely those of the smaller public trust ports to which the Secretary of State appoints only a small number of members out of a much larger board membership. The proportion of ministerial appointments varies from port to port, but in the ports covered by the power the maximum number of ministerial appointments is four, and the actual number is usually only one or two. The appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales—an appointee who the noble Viscount did no mention—to a number of fishery harbours are also covered by the power. In these cases the kind of board member required is somebody with local knowledge of the area and harbour and in these circumstances the harbour authority themselves are in a much better position to identify suitable appointees.
It has been argued that ministerial appointments provide an essential means of ensuring a proper balance in the composition of authorities. We accept, as I have already said, that this is certainly true in the case of major public trust ports. But, in practice, the number of ministerial appointments to the smaller ports is, in our view, likely to be too small to have any significant balancing effect. For example, the Secretary of State appoints only two members to the Berwick Harbour Commision out of a total membership of 18 and only one member to the Cowes Harbour Commission out of a total membership of 19. It is only from these harbours, with more localised interests, that the Secretary of State proposes to consider withdrawing from making appointments in accordance with our policy of withdrawing wherever possible from unnecessary engagement in port affairs.
I recognise, of course, that this amendment does not seek to delete the new power from the Bill altogether, but instead requires Ministers to have regard to maintaining the existing balance of interests on the board. We will certainly pay due regard to the balance of a board in deciding whether to withdraw from making ministerial appointments, and in making any alternative arrangements in consequence of a withdrawal. But we consider that this amendment seeks to influence the outcome of the Minister's review in advance. It sets up a presumption in favour of leaving the existing balance of interests on the board unaltered. I am afraid that this would be inconsistent with the purpose of the new provision, which is precisely to enable Ministers to review the case for continued ministerial involvement in some of the smaller ports which are of local rather than national interest, and, in the event that they withdraw from this involvement, to make the alternative arrangements which appear to be appropriate in the particular local circumstances. Some of the existing constitutions are now very old. For example, that at Teignmouth dates back to 1924, while that at Cowes was established as long ago as 1897. I am sure that we all recognise that circumstances over this very long period of time are bound
370
to change, and we believe it is right that such arrangements should be renewed.
None the less, I hope that I can give the noble Lord and the British Ports Association some reassurance. No decisions have yet been taken on the ports to which Ministers will cease to make appointments. Furthermore, the Bill requires the Minister to consult with the harbour authority and others affected, and full account will be taken of the views expressed. Thirdly, in view of the small proportion of members appointed by a Minister at the ports to which the power can apply, the scope for any action by the Minister to have a marked effect on the balance of interests represented on the board is bound to be small. The power will be limited to making alternative arrangements for those appointments made by a Minister. To take Cowes as an example again, my right honourable friend's power will be limited to either dropping the ministerial appointment and reducing the size of the commission by one, or else to providing for his one appointment to be made by someone else. He cannot reconstitute the whole commission.
Finally, may I stress that we shall not approach the matter with any preconceived ideas as to the right solution in any particular case. If, after full consultation with the port authority and others concerned, we are satisfied that a ministerial appointment remains an essential means of ensuring a proper balance, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will not seek change for change's sake. With these assurances I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will be able to accept what I have said and withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. He mentioned Teignmouth, and curiously enough I think that Teignmouth is one of the ports which I am advised is concerned about the position—I beg your Lordships' pardon, it is not Teignmouth, but Falmouth. Anyway, I am very satisfied with what the Minister has said. The assurance that he has given will, I hope —because I cannot speak for them—be acceptable to the British Ports Association. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the object of the amendment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 63, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
("(3) For section 31(1) (right of objection to ship, passenger and goods dues) there is substituted—
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act charges to which this section applies are ship, passenger and goods dues and cargo handling charges.
(1A) In this section "cargo handling charges" means charges for loading, unloading and handling goods where such services are supplied by a harbour authority or its agents or a subsidiary or associated body or person and there is no other supplier of such services at the dock quay or wharf at which the particular services are provided or no other supplier other than the harbour authority, its agent or a subsidiary or associated body or person."
( ) For references in section 31(2) to ship, passenger and goods dues there shall be substituted references to ship, passenger and goods dues and cargo handling charges.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be as brief

371
as I can in setting out the purpose of this amendment and its background. The Harbours Act 1964 makes provision for port users to object to charges for ship, passenger, and goods dues which are imposed by a harbour authority. At present there is appeal to the National Ports Council, but with the abolition of the council the appeal will now fall upon the Secretary of State.
At the Committee stage it was emphasised that the conditions that existed in 1964 no longer apply because in most ports at that time there were a number of employers who provided stevedoring and similar services in competition one with another. There have been considerable changes since then and there is general agreement that the position as it was in 1964 does not apply at this stage. Because of that situation it is suggested that in addition to the appeal against ship, passenger, and goods dues, there should be opportunity for port users to appeal against other charges imposed by a harbour authority. There is general agreement that in some ports the port authority is the sole employer of dock labour. I believe that this is accepted by the Under-Secretary for Transport, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in the Committee stage agreed that that was the situation in some ports.
The National Waterways Transport Association, which is an independent body dealing with freight operators on our waterways, is very concerned about the monopolistic situation which is developing in some of the areas in which its freight operators on waterways operate, and some of the leading individual operators have expressed their concern about this. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, concluded his remarks at the Committee stage as follows:
"Were we satisfied that there was a monopoly I am sure we would look very carefully with regard to considering the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth ".—[Official Report, 8/6/81; col. 15.]
That suggestion made by the noble Viscount was that provision should be made in the Bill for independent arbitration.
The amendment seeks to provide that there should be the right of appeal against cargo handling charges where the harbour authority is the sole provider of such services. Therefore, this amendment is considerably different from the one that was moved during the Committee stage. Where the harbour authority is the sole provider of these services, it must be recognised that, therefore, there is a monopoly in those particular areas, and it is in those circumstances only that we are now suggesting that there should be this right of appeal. It is so reasonable that I think it meets all sides, and I hope the noble Lord will feel that he can accept it.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. There is a good deal of concern about the increasing emergence of monopoly situations within the port industry. This amendment would extend the provisions of Section 8 of the 1964 Act so as to bring within it all charges raised by a port authority. It would, through the Secretary of State as successor to the National Ports Council, help to protect the interests of the private sector companies and the British Waterways Board, and thus help to allay
372
some of the present fears. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support it.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and his noble friends have certainly gone some way to meet the objection which I ventured to raise to the amendment they proposed before by confining this to ports where there was a monopoly in the provision of cargo handling. I still think there is a substantial difference between this and the dues. It was indeed very well explained by the noble Lord the Minister on the last occasion.
The ship dues of course arise from the provision of facilities under a monopoly position. It may be that in certain ports the cargo handling is a monopoly at the present time of the port authority. But it is not a statutory monopoly, and consequently if the users think that the rates are too high they can always set up another business themselves to do the job. I speak subject to correction, but I think there is only one port that has a statutory monopoly and that is the Manchester Ship Canal Company, but I may be wrong.
Elsewhere I think it would be found that there is no statutory monopoly, and if the service provided by the port authority is too expensive everybody is at liberty to try to find somebody else to do it. The trouble these days is that it is such an unrewarding job trying to run cargo handling in any port that everybody is only too pleased when the port authority take it over.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when I first looked at this amendment I thought that it was probably rather a fast serve coming low over the net to my backhand, but on reconsideration I accept that I was wrong and that it was perfectly properly put down, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explained. As I am sure your Lordships will recall, we had a debate on this subject during the Committee stage. I had hoped on that occasion that I had persuaded the Opposition that there was no case for extending the existing right of appeal against ship, passenger and goods dues to cover cargo handling charges also. For the second time this evening, I will have another go.
The argument, as we have just heard, is that port authorities, subsidiaries or associates are now the main employers of dock workers, and in particular that they have a monopoly of the cargo handling services provided to port users at certain ports or wharves. It is certainly true that over the last 15 years or so port authorities have become the main employers of dock workers and at some ports there is effectively only one provider of cargo handling services. But there is simply no way in which such undertakers can exercise an effective monopoly. To take an example from the British Transport Docks Board, they are virtually the only dock employer at King's Lynn. But by no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as a monopoly when there are ports from Yorkshire to Poole which are in competition for business with King's Lynn. This is the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. That they are not in a monopoly situation taken as a whole, was I think the noble Viscount's point.

373
Among the competitors are alleged monopolists such as Ipswich and Great Yarmouth. With continually improving road communications to ports, users have an increasing choice of port facilities at their disposal and the ports are only too well aware that users can switch business from one port to another. To talk of a monopoly in this situation is, I would suggest, not to talk of the real world.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I must disagree totally that you can switch ships from one port to another. If you do that, dock labour will black you and then you just cannot discharge your vessel. If you try to switch vessels from one port to another and the dock labour dig their heels in, you are landed with a vessel with no harbour to go to and a blacked cargo.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not suggesting that you should switch the vessel's point of arrival when it was on the high seas, but I was suggesting that since in advance you would know what the dues were going to be in any particular port, you would therefore be able to choose your port to take advantage of the dues and charges in a particular port.
There is also an important distinction between ship, passenger and goods dues, on the one hand, and cargo handling charges, on the other. Although I discussed this at some length during Committee stage the point is important and is, I think, worth emphasising again. The dues are levied on all port users in respect of the use of the basic or essential port and harbour facilities, and reflect the authority's costs in the provision of the harbour infrastructure and the maintenance of approach channels, lights, buoys and beacons, and so on. They are essentially in the nature of tax, an amount payable by a user but not necessarily directly related to the services he receives. Other port charges are, on the other hand, levied for specific services provided to users, for example for loading or unloading a ship or for the storage of goods, and they are related to the kind of services provided. But the same simply cannot be said of ship, passenger and goods dues and that is why we have decided to maintain the status quo and retain the right of objection to these dues.
I assure the House that the Government have given very serious consideration to the many requests to extend the existing right of appeal. We introduced one amendment on Report in another place, which is now Schedule 6(8), which places a clear responsibility on port authorities to specify their ship, passenger and goods dues element of a combined charge where the user requires them to do so. But we have received no evidence since the Bill was printed to suggest that an extension of the appeals procedure on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is either necessary or justified. We have also considered the possibility of transferring the appellate function under Section 31 of the Harbours Act to an independent body, a point that was raised during the debate in Committee, but we concluded that the function could not simply be carried out by a body which had no other responsibility for ports affairs. But whoever the appellate authority would be, an extension of the appeals procedure would still result in an unnecessary and unjustified extension of
374
control over the ports' pricing policies. That is what we wish to avoid; it is not only a question of refusing to extend ministerial control. I hope that on this occasion I have explained to your Lordships' satisfaction the Government's reasons for not accepting the amendment, and that accordingly the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, as the Minister referred to my comments, perhaps I should inform him that I am afraid he did not correctly understand what I was trying to get at, which was no doubt my fault.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I assure the Minister that I clearly recognise the difference between the normal dues and the dock charges about which we are talking. The noble Lord said no evidence had been produced since Committee. I presume that he and his department receive the same pressures from the commercial operators—and I am talking about commercial operators—on British waterways, freight carriers, as we receive. They are very concerned with what they describe as a developing monopolistic situation, particularly in relation to Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation; they are very worried about Associated British Ports being taken over from the British Transport Docks Board in the area and they argue that a monopoly situation is developing. The commercial private operators have raised the matter. As we have the evidence, I assume the department has it.
The appeal we are suggesting would be to the Secretary of State, in the same way as the appeal will be against passenger, ship and goods dues. There would not be a great number of appeals, but in fairness, if commercial operators are worried about this, they should have the opportunity to appeal, and only where there is a monopoly situation of the harbour authority being the only employer. This seems so reasonable, and the Minister's reply so unreasonable, that I must press the matter to a Division.
9.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Loudoun, C.

Ardwick, L.

Monson, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young of Dartington, L.

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

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Belstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Bessborough, E.

Avon, E.

Boardman, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barrington, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cathcart, E,

375

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Croft, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dundee, E.

Portland, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reigate, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selkirk, E.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Simon, V.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trenchard, V.

Killearn, L.

Vaizey, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Vickers, B.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lyell, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

McFadzean, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 19 [Disqualification for repeated offences]:
9.26 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 10, after ("3") insert ("penalty").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember the stirring address on the subject of penalty points that was delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, at Committee stage, with which the Government were very happy to agree. These amendments are consequential to the acceptance of the amendments put down by the noble Lord, and I invite your Lordships to agree with them. I am speaking to Amendment No. 14 as well as to Amendments Nos. 64 to 69, which are for the same purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I almost apologise for inflicting so many penalties upon your Lordships' patience.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Points to be endorsed]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 67, line 23, at end insert—
("7(4). Failing to provide specimen for breath test. 4.").
Page 67, line 24, column 2, at end insert ("for analysis").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together, and to speak to Nos. 22 and 70 at the same time. Considerable concern has been expressed, both in the House at Committee stage and elsewhere, about those drivers who try to escape the breath test requirements. It
376
was suggested, therefore, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in the amendment that he put down at Committee stage, that such drivers should be disqualified as if they had committed one of the main drinking and driving offences. We have carefully considered this matter and have come to the conclusion that there is a need for a power to order disqualification if the circumstances of any particular case are serious enough to warrant this. Accordingly, we are proposing that this power should be introduced.
However, as all offences subject to discretionary disqualification must be endorsed on a licence, it is also necessary to allocate a number of penalty points to the offence. The amendment to Schedule 7, therefore, assigns four penalty points for the offence of failing to provide a specimen for a breath test. This is the equivalent to one-third of a disqualification, which is what it would be if the offence currently attracted discretionary disqualification. Consequential to that amendment it is necessary to clarify the wording in line 24 so that the failure to supply a specimen of breath for an "in charge" offence relates to the evidential breath specimen and not to the screening test.
The Government consider that this additional power of disqualification will be a helpful addition to the powers available to the court in tackling these irresponsible drivers who endeavour to evade the drink-drive laws. I therefore commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved amendment No. 17:
Page 67, line 39, column 3, leave out ("5") and insert ("4–8 at the discretion of the court").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a similar amendment to one which was brought forward at Committee stage to deal with the question of a person causing a vehicle to be taken on the road uninsured and unsecured against third party risk. I think that all noble Lords will agree that this is a serious offence and one which deserves to have a higher number of penalty points than five. The amendment seeks to give a top rating of eight points but to have a range of from four to eight. When this question was brought up in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that it was obvious that the arguments put forward were arguments he would like to consider. On that basis the amendment was withdrawn. I hope that the noble and learned Lord has been able to consider them. I will move the amendment briefly in the hope that the Government see fit to accept it. May I ask leave to delete the words "discretion of the court" from the amendment since I am told that they are unnecessary?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendment proposed: Page 67, line 39, column 3, leave out ("5") and insert ("4–8").
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment which seeks to give courts some discretion as to the number of penalty points that they can impose for the offence of driving uninsured. In my own experience, which is limited to one court and that not a very large one, the penalties for this

377
offence vary from a fine of several hundreds of pounds down to a fine of £5 and £10 and even, in certain somewhat unusual cases, to no fine at all but a conditional discharge. Another reason for supporting this amendment is that I know that the Magistrates' Association very much favour the idea of courts having some discretion as to the number of points awarded for this offence.
In another place the Government established a precedent for a range of points for the offences of failing to stop and failing to report an accident. At the Committee stage in this House it was agreed that a range of points should be available for the offence of careless driving.
Also the report of the interdepartmental working party (which was not available until after the Second Reading in this House) comes out, on page 55, in favour of a range of points. I think that the only argument against giving courts such a discretion is that it may take up more court time. I think that this argument can be exaggerated and, in any event, I feel sure that any extra court time is more than offset by better justice. I therefore very much hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will be able to accept this amendment or, failing that, that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will press this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment as I did at Committee stage and for exactly the same reasons that I referred to at that time. I am a little sorry that my noble and learned friend has not been able to communicate the further thoughts until perhaps only a few hours ago. One might have expected the department to have come up with some suggestions following that Committee stage. The main objection which I still have is that we cannot allow for the sake of the convenience of the court the opportunity for justice to be swept into one penalty point number. I reiterate that I believe that the insurance companies themselves are to a very large extent to blame for some people failing to have insurance.
I do not want to labour this too much because I have said on other occasions that I am no great friend of the insurance companies. Small print is a very fine thing if you care to read it through. There are a great number of misunderstandings—I put it no higher than that—as between a client, a broker and a company. Frequently the cardinal point is: How much is the policy going to cost? It could be with the best will in the world that the broker says, "I can get it for £X", but fails to say the limitations. There could be certain limitations, particularly when one changes cars, drives a friend's car where there are limitations on the policy, and finds himself uninsured. So there are degrees.
On the other side is the point that insurance is increasingly expensive, and we are advised that premiums are likely to increase by another 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. later this year. There is the temptation to avoid taking out any policy at all. That is pretty serious. Notwithstanding the safety net arrangements with the bureau, I have to say that although the bureau say, "We have the money in the kitty, and if there is an accident committed by somebody uninsured, the bureau will pay out" there are numerous cases, now
378
several years old, where the bureau have not paid out and it has not been contested, whereas a person who was properly insured could have had legal representatives who could have made a proper case of it. On the one hand there is the inadvertent and the misunderstanding, which is more a technical offence and should therefore qualify for a comparatively low number of points; on the other side of the coin there is the mischievous avoidance of the responsibility. That should be very heavily penalised.
I hope that my noble and learned friend is not going to advance the same argument—if he is going to advance any argument at all—against this amendment that the yardstick for the points system has been taken from the average of fines throughout the country. I do not find that to be a satisfactory yardstick. It may be a yardstick but Parliament have the opportunity of looking at the situation perhaps a little more dispassionately than the department who may be relying on certain satistics of average fines. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend on this side of the House, and others who spoke in Committee, believe this to be something of a more serious nature that should have a penalty point variation moving towards the higher end for the more serious offences. I hope that the noble Lord pursues this argument.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as I said at Committee stage, we undertook to look at this matter and we have indeed done so very carefully. I gave reasons at Committee stage as to why we were opposed to the extension of discretionary points to offences other than failure to stop and failure to report. Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fortescue that we did accept that the circumstances of those offences were very special. The offence is on the increase and it is a very important and dangerous trend in the traffic scene. On the other hand, I do not propose to go over again the arguments which I advanced at Committee stage against the discretion.
There is one aspect of the matter that I think can be easily lost sight of. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was inclined to advise me against advancing this argument, but unfortunately I have to say that on this occasion I cannot take his advice in total. It seems to me important that the present system is based on a fairly coherent analysis of the decisions of magistrates up and down the country as to the relative severity of these offences.
As I explained, the points system is based on that very considerable body of experience, which is not to be set aside lightly. Of course, I accept it is perfectly open to your Lordships to decide that the generality of magistrates have got the balance wrong and at some particular level it requires changing, but I would certainly suggest that we need pretty strong reasons to reach that view. Personally I do not feel convinced so far that the magistrates are so wrong in treating careless driving and insurances generally as of equal seriousness, as is suggested, by putting 2 to 5 points on careless driving, in accordance with your Lordships' decision in Committee, and 4 to 8 points, as in the present amendment.
I would also venture to suggest that an important aspect of justice as between individuals, particularly

379
when so many cases are in issue, is the question of consistency. Each magistrates' court, applying its mind to this matter, reaches a view; and if they have a discretion on points then it is very natural that different magistrates' courts, applying their minds very much to the same circumstances, may reach different points of view. I think that anyone with experience of this matter will know that a great deal of ill-feeling is sometimes generated where apparently similar cases are treated very differently. That is not an argument against all discretion, but it is an argument that indicates that consistency in sentencing is an important aspect of justice, not to be overlooked.
I mentioned before, and I think it is important, that the more discretion that is given to the courts in this matter the more time each of these cases takes up; and when one thinks of the number of such cases and multiplies that time by the total number, it involves a quite considerable amount of court time. My noble friend says it is not right to put into the balance the convenience of the court, but that is not what I am thinking of; I am thinking about the total amount of resource that we are able to devote to the administration of justice. There are many calls on our national resources: we hear about this continually. It is a question of priorities, and the Government must have regard to what can be allocated properly to the administration of justice and take account of that in the powers that the courts are given—because this is
380
an attempt to improve on the present totting-up system where there is no discretion in the allocation of the equivalent of points and because of the present system the offences that are subject to this procedure are all to be treated equally. This, even with fixed points, is a considerable refinement and improvement upon that.
However, in the light of all that your Lordships have said, and particularly in the light of what has been decided already in relation to careless driving, if your Lordships are disposed to press this amendment, then I would not feel disposed to press it to a Division.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful for the last remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He said that one should not set aside lightly the general view of justices on these offences, but neither should we set aside lightly the effect on the individual. Justice must apply not only to the person who is to be brought before the court, but to the individual who may be suffering from a very serious accident and whose life may be completely ruined. If a person takes a vehicle on the road without insurance, that is almost as serious as drinking and driving. That is something with which I think your Lordships will agree. In view of the encouraging remarks of the noble and learned Lord, I will press this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 68, line 16, column 3, leave out ("3") and insert ("2–3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the question of speeding. I do not want to be at all difficult, but there are one or two points which I should like to put to my noble and learned friend. I was a little disturbed when he said, in effect, that we have to pay due regard to the amount of money that we can afford for the administration of justice. I am not trying to be at all clever, but is he telling us that justice has a price tag? If he is saying that, then this further amendment, altering the penalty points to be awarded for speeding offences, is fairly important.
There can be only one difference between this amendment and the previous one, which is that in the previous amendment there was no alternative charge, while in the case of a speeding offence there is a range of alternative or complementary charges. That can be the only defence for having a fixed penalty for a speeding offence. However, this amendment attempts to establish the fact that there are degrees of speeding.
The first degree is that of the technical offence of exceeding the speed limit. It might be through carelessness, misjudgment or a number of things, causing no great damage to anybody and not offending the sensibilities of people. It might be that, as a result of a number of excesses over a stretch of road, the police authorities decide to set up a trapping system and anybody who is a few miles over the odds when going to work in the morning gets caught in the net. That driver is penalised with precisely the same number of points as somebody who exceeds the speed limit without proper regard, though without necessarily being guilty of reckless or careless driving, in a different area and in different circumstances, in which case there should be a further penalty.
During the Committee stage, my noble friend asked, in effect, "After all, what are two or three points?"He will probably remember the occasion. I say that if you have nine points, due to a very serious misdemeanour nine or 12 months earlier, two or three points can be the difference between keeping your job and losing it. It is the difference between compulsory disqualification and teetering on the brink. It might be for what I described as a technical offence. It is for that reason that we ought to have this particular variation. It is understood that the police are unlikely to want to prosecute for the minor and the technical offence, and that it may be embraced at some time in the future—next year or possibly the year after—into a fixed penalty scheme. I quite accept that. So if one had at this stage a variation which, although only one penalty point apart, recognised two degrees of the same offence, surely it would ease the passage of the fixed penalty system.
Your Lordships may remember that, with one exception, all noble Lords who spoke to this amendment at the Committee stage gave it their general favour. It was because it was very late at night that I agreed to withdraw it and to consult my noble friends and other noble Lords. I have consulted many of them.
382
They still believe, as I do, that a variation in the penalty points system is just in this instance. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that this amendment is a mistake. If there is a scale of penalty points, the more rule of thumb they are the better it is. We have begun to introduce into this scale grounds for argument on the bench as to whether it is a two or a three point offence, or as to where it comes between four and eight points. I doubt whether this is justified. If it makes any difference to the grand total as to whether a driver exceeding the speed limit has a score of two penalty points or three, it seems to me that he is a pretty bad man to be on the road, anyhow, and that probably he ought to have a higher penalty rather than a lower penalty against him. We know that the speed limit is widely disregarded. Walk outside this place at any hour of the day, but especially at a time when your Lordships are leaving, and see what is happening. Why we do not have more by-elections in Parliament is a miracle to me because of the way people go by this place at terrific speed. Motor cycles do not seem to think they come within the speed restrictions. And the more noise they make the less they think that they come within any curb that has been laid down by the Transport Act.
With great respect to the noble Lord who has moved this amendment, I should leave it alone. This is difficult, anyway, to enforce. There is no point in messing about in this fastidious way between two and three points. It probably ought to be five, so let us leave it where it is.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think that my noble friend has got a point. It sounds as though the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is essentially a pedestrian and has not had the bitter experience of being "had up" for speeding when he really has not been speeding, as opposed to being "had up" for speeding when he really has. I recognise the difference. I fully admit that it has happened to me. It is very good to have a discretion here. There are so many times when one can inadvertently drive too fast. The road is clear, you are not doing any harm to anybody, but technically you are going slightly too fast. I admit that there are other times when you are in a frightful hurry and when you hope desperately that there is no policeman near you, but sometimes there is. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is speaking very much from the point of view of the pedestrian. Therefore I ask my noble and learned friend to forget what he said and to turn back to the very excellent arguments of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I fully appreciate what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has said. I can understand the case he puts forward, but I supported the view expressed on this amendment at Second Reading and at the Committee stage, and I have no reason to change my support now. I do not happen to have a halo around my head because only once have I been caught for speeding. It was turned midnight, on a road with no traffic anywhere near me.

383
Technically it was an offence. I could not have hurt anybody. On the other hand, you can get speeding offences which are extremely dangerous. That is why there is a case for a range of penalties. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be replying to this debate, and I should like to congratulate him because I gather that today is his birthday. He is in such a happy mood that he agreed with the last amendment; I hope that he is still happy and will agree with this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I do not agree at all with points discretion per se, except in this particular case. I think there should be points discretion between speeding at 40 miles per hour on a road with a 30 miles per hour speed limit and speeding at 120 miles per hour on a motorway that has a 70 miles per hour speed limit, and I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his good wishes. So far as accepting views is concerned, I think I have shot my bolt in that respect. Not for the first time I am very grateful for the remarks which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because in my submission to the House this proposal is indeed attempting to introduce very fastidious discretion into this matter. There are some 300,000 such cases every year and, as one of the law officers who has a responsibility for the administration of justice, I certainly cannot be indifferent to the proposal, which would place considerable extra burdens on the courts at a time when there are already quite intolerable delays in dealing with very serious cases—as anyone who has any connection with the administration of justice knows.
It is not a question of justice having a price tag—not at all. However, it is extremely important that justice should not be held up by the kind of minute discretion which this particular amendment seeks to give. The points system, by its very nature, will have to be a broad brush system and, of course, offences may vary in seriousness. If one is going to differentiate too finely one would not stop at two points and three points but would go on to have 2.1 points, 2.2 points and so on, with no limit to the fineness of the discretion. I believe that, in practice, there must be a limit on the degree to which one can carry this kind of discretion. As I said before, if one tries to be too precise one will run into the opposite danger of inconsistency, and I believe that this is what would happen in relation to speeding.
I very much doubt whether magistrates—with all the conscientiousness they bring to discharging their difficult task—could develop a consistent criterion for differentiating between a two points case and a three points case. What is a technical offence? How far over the speed limit does one need to go? What time of night does it need to be? And so on. One can imagine almost interminable arguments on this matter. The amount of excess speed is not in itself a sufficiently reliable indicator because there are many other circumstances and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill
384
referred to some of them. I believe that fine discretion of this kind would lead to a strong sense of grievance among many people who were subject to the system. It would be felt by someone who was penalised three points that they were no worse, given the time of night, the conditions and the speed at which they were travelling, than someone who was penalised two points in, perhaps, the same court or a neighbouring court.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, after the announcement made by Mr. Fowler not so long ago, which was in all the newspapers, the press reported that "on the spot" fines would be between £10 and £20. This is a variation. The tickets may be for £10·50, £11·50 or £11·75 and this would be a variation. If variation is to be introduced later in the value of "on the spot" fines, then why not introduce the differentiation now? I know this is something for the future but I believe it is something the noble and learned Lord should consider now.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am just coming to the question to the effect of this amendment on the fixed penalty system. The arguments that I have already developed in my submission apply very strongly to the speeding case because of the great number of such cases, but my noble friend's intervention came at an appropriate time because I was just about to pass to the relationship of this proposal with the possible extension of the fixed penalty system to the less serious endorsable moving traffic offences. When I raised this argument before I was accused, I think, of using it almost as a gambler's last desperate throw because I had not used it in relation to careless driving or insurance offences. However, the argument is not relevant to these offences because we are not proposing that the fixed penalty system should be extended to cover them. It is relevant to speeding offences which we would like to see included in an extended fixed penalty system.
I believe this would be a reform which would be widely welcomed. We believe that it is a reform which would have advantages for both the courts and the motorists. But I cannot see us being able to implement it in any satisfactory way unless we have fixed points for the offences concerned. In theory it may not be totally impossible to have a fixed penalty system with variable points but in practice the operational difficulties for the police would be so great that our in view the balance of advantage would be against making the change.
In all the matters that we have been considering there is a balance to be struck. In relation to the question asked by my noble friend, the fixed penalty system which we have in mind would be a system providing for fixed penalties for given offences. There would of course be different fixed penalities for different offences, and I think that was what my right honourable friend was referring to in the remarks to which my noble friend drew attention. In the operation of a fixed penalty system which is going to be reasonably efficient I think it is necessary to have fixed penalties for given offences and that is why I suggest that granting a discretion on the points aspect is not advisable.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for clearing that matter up for me.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the other matter that I should mention is that if the offence is entirely technical and there are special reasons for non-endorsement, of course the points do not arise at all, so there is a discretion in the court in these circumstances to impose no points at all because it is only when the endorsement is put on that the points arise. So there is an element of discretion already—nothing or the fixed number that we suggest.
In these circumstances, I strongly press your Lordships not to accept this amendment. Some of the arguments are used in relation to the earlier amendments, and the strength of the arguments varies according to the case, but this is an amendment which I would strongly press your Lordships not to accept.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his very long answer. I should like to say at the outset that I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, should have advanced his arguments. I think I am right in saying that earlier he declared that he was not a car driver and loathed all motor-cars, so I am not in the least surprised that he adopts the attitude he does. I am sorry for him because if he is not a driver and has not enjoyed some of the hazards and pleasures of modern-day motoring he does not know what he is missing—five points or three.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This Bill is being made for motorists by motorists, and I happen not to be one of them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, were it so, I am quite sure that all the noble Lords who are motorists would rewrite this particular schedule in very different terms; I believe that this Bill is not written for motorists by motorists. I believe it is a really genuine attempt, particularly in Part IV, after many years, to get to grips with some of the hazards and the dangers experienced on our roads. It is a road safety section, and I believe it goes quite a long way towards meeting a great number of the desires of those who do not motor as well as those who do. I am surprised again that expressions of support for this should have come from so many noble Lords. However, I do not want to make too much of an issue of it.
May I remind my noble and learned friend of paragraph 56 of the report of the inter-departmental working party, in which it is said:
"In the case of speeding offences it is a feature of several overseas systems to graduate the points values according to the amounts by which the limit is exceeded".
So some people have managed to find a formula to adopt this and apparently they do not find too much difficulty, because the departmental working party do not condemn that. They say further:
"We were, however, concerned that this could lead to an increase in the number of cases contested in court, for the purpose
386
of reducing the award of points, which at present would be simply disposed of on a guilty plea".
I quite accept that about half the motoring offences which come before the courts—I understand it is about half the total number of offences that come before the courts—may take up a lot of time. I do not think that should greatly concern us. However, my noble and learned friend has said that there can be cases where a speeding offence is one which would not necessarily result in an endorsement and therefore would not involve any points. It is on that understanding, that there is this escape route in the system, that I am prepared to accept what he advises, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Provisional licences and driving tests]:
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert—
("Provided that such regulations may be suspended if unexpected circumstances have unduly extended the waiting period for driving test appointments.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that I support the Government in their intention to stop provisional licence-holders riding motor-cycles for ever without taking a test and in many cases with no intention whatever of going for the test. I am not happy at all about a system whereby they should lose their licence for a year if they have not passed their test within two years, but I was encouraged at Committee stage to be told by Her Majesty's Government that the waiting list is now considerably less than it was and averages out at about three to four months, though it is longer in London; I hope that in London the time will be reduced. This lesser waiting time is a great advantage because it does mean that a motor-cyclist can have several attempts within the two years to pass his test. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a very good point at Committee, when he mentioned the effects of very bad weather, or even an epidemic of influenza, which would prevent the motor-cyclist taking his test within the time limit, and this would be grossly unjust. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me an assurance that the Government will be flexible in their approach to this matter and perhaps extend the two years to a longer period. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I want to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity briefly to discuss further this important issue, and hopefully to reassure both your Lordships' House and motor-cyclists about our intentions. At present we have a situation where only a small minority, some 15 per cent., of learner motor-cyclists take a course of training, and far too many continue to ride indefinitely without taking a test. Everyone would agree that this is unsatisfactory. It is in stark contrast to the position of learner car drivers. Ninety-five per cent. of them take professional tuition and they are only too keen to pass their test. Their inducement to do so is the fact that they have to be accompanied.
It would not be practicable to make a similar pro-

387
vision for learner motor-cyclists and we have therefore had to seek alternative means of achieving our objective. Those we have chosen are the two-part test, part I of which can be taken with an approved training organisation, and a limit on the duration of provisional licences. We believe that this should induce the great majority of riders to take training in the early part of their riding career when they are most vulnerable and to go on to pass their test within a reasonable space of time.
Worries have, however, been expressed that the present length of the test queues will mean that riders will not be given a fair chance to pass the test under the new system. We understand these fears not least because they have been so well expressed and endorsed by my noble friend. I should make it clear that we want riders to have a fair chance. It is simply not in our interest to take large numbers of riders off the road at the end of whatever period is set. If that were to happen, it would show a failure on our part as much as on that of the riders themselves. The aim of this provision is, I repeat, solely to encourage riders to take training and pass their test.
If we are to achieve this aim, the length of the period and the waiting time for the test will both be very important. The period must be short enough to give riders a sufficiently powerful incentive to pass the test. It must also be long enough to give them a fair chance to pass in the time available. At present we have a period of two years in mind: we thought it right to give everyone an indication of our thinking at this stage.
As my noble friend so rightly said, it is encouraging that the waiting period has been considerably reduced, as I said when I spoke on this matter previously. We are hoping that in this way we shall be able to bring an element of flexibility for the future, which we agree is highly desirable. We have that flexibility because the duration of the provisional licence will be specified in regulations. Those regulations need not be laid until late February or early March of next year. So we shall be able to defer a final decision on the duration of the licence until then, when we shall be able to take into account the length of the test queues at that time and the anticipated demand for motor-cycle tests. I entirely take the point that my noble friend makes that flexibility is very much a key to the whole matter, and in assuring him that we are so cognizant of that fact I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask, having been approached since the Committee stage, whether I am right in thinking that it will be compulsory to pass two tests, or is it optional?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge I do not know that it will be necessary to pass two tests. There are two parts. It is a question of how you define what is one or two tests. You can have one test in two parts or you can call it two tests. If my noble friend would like details I shall be glad to see that he gets them.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, as regards the two-part test you would first have to get a certificate for having passed the initial training and then you would have to take that certificate along to get your major test. So in actual fact it is two tests.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, seems to be dismissing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, a little too readily. I do not see what harm it could do for the Government to accept the amendment. It imposes no obligations on the Minister. It is merely permissive; it is not mandatory. It is a stop-gap, a safeguard if you like. Will the Government not consider accepting it? I do not see how it could possibly harm the basic intentions behind this part of the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think that there is a necessity for the amendment. My noble friend Lord Strathcarron is so eminent a person in this field and so knowledgeable. I know that he has discussed this matter with colleagues. We hope that he is satisfied on this point. He represents very much the interests of motor-cyclists and motor-cycling and in many ways he is one of our bench marks. He will probably be pleased to know that that is so. But it is right that it should be so. I do not think that I ought to go further on this point. If my noble friend Lord Strathcarron wishes to comment further, I should be glad to hear his comment. But I think we have it fairly right at this stage.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the assurance that he has given that there will, as necessary, be a degree of flexibility in the time period. Therefore, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 19, line 19, at end insert ("but no such regulations shall be made until the Secretary of State has received reports from all relevant local authorities estimating the number of learner motorcyclists who require training in their areas and listing the facilities made available, including training and testing sites, examiners and instructors, in accordance with their road safety and training obligations under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1974.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I tabled what I said was a probing amendment to make provision for compulsory training before a motor-cyclist was able to take a cycle on the road. I put that amendment forward in Committee in order to ascertain from the Government precisely what were the details for facilities and for finances. I must say that the reply from the Minister was disappointing in those respects.
Since the debate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who spoke on this matter in Committee, has kindly sent me a copy of a letter, which he has sent to other noble Lords, and again he has expressed the view that the Government are putting their faith in the two-part test being an inducement for riders to proceed to take the test within a reasonable time. In his letter, the noble Lord said:

389
"We must first ensure that adequate training and testing facilities are readily available across the country".
But he added:
"We see no reason for increasing public expenditure by either central or local government. We expect the system to be entirely self-supporting".
I am certain that all noble Lords agree that one of our first considerations is not so much the training of someone who has been riding a bike for a year, but the training of the novice who will be taking a motorcycle on the road for the first time.
Since the Committee stage, I have been given some information about facilities that have been available in Scotland. I am informed that in Scotland, the motor-cycle trade prepared a scheme for training in schools and at centres. This scheme penetrated literally every area of Scotland with training facilities for the novices, and it is surely the novice with whom we are concerned. Mr. Graham Chatham, who has given me leave to mention his name, tells me that his own company has decided on the policy of: No training, no bike; and there has been excellent co-operation from the police in making an analysis of training that has been carried out.
They have carried out an analysis for every trained rider, and in Lothian in 1979 nearly 10 per cent. of all motor-cyclists were involved in a fatal accident or a serious injury that was reported to the police. But in the case of novices, in the first few months of that year 20 per cent. were involved. Of the trained sample of novices, the figure was reduced to 4 per cent. So it was 20 per cent. for all novices and 4 per cent. for those who were trained. I am told that the 1980 figures are almost identical. It was a sample of 1,500, and therefore this cannot be ignored.
I am also informed that the novices trained in 1979 have been followed through into 1980 to see what has happened to them. In the first 10 months of 1980, which have been analysed, only 3½ per cent. of the novices trained as riders in 1979 have been involved in a serious accident. These figures must be available to the department and they are illuminating. They show what happens when there is training for novices, and it is surely the novices about whom we are worried.
In this amendment we are asking—again in the form of a probe—that the Government should not try to go through with the scheme unless they know exactly what training facilities will be available, and unless they know exactly what the call upon them will be for training. Merely to talk of exhortations and inducements is not sufficient. The figures that I have quoted—and I am certain that they are correct because they have the full confirmation of the Lothian police—are surely illuminating.
We are concerned with the first-time novice who takes a motor-cycle on the road, and that there is nothing in the Government's scheme that gives any encouragement about what is going to be achieved. I hope that the amendment will be supported because it is asking that no regulations should go ahead unless we have all the relevant information of facilities, finance, instructors, training centres, and so on. I beg to move.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, this training aspect is of the utmost importance, and it is essential that the training facilities are a ailable at the start. This
390
affects the two-year period, because if a novice is unable to take his initial training that would come out of his two-year period. That would be to his disadvantage. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that again this will come under the flexible approach to the matter; obviously if the training schemes are not available then you would have to delay the scheme.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, my noble friend hits it on the head. Of course it would be wrong to bring in the regulations prescribing the new two part motor-cycle test until we were satisfied that the sufficient training facilities for learner riders were available, together with training bodies authorised to conduct the "Part I" tests on their trainees. My right honourable and honourable friends have no intention of allowing their motor-cycle safety proposals in this Bill to fail because of inadequate facilities. They have proposed introducing the new motor-cycle test on 1st January 1982 because of the urgency they attach to acting to deal with the frightening level of motor-cycle accidents. But they will not bring in the new test until the necessary facilities are available.
The department are in the process of finding out what facilities are and will be available. They are consulting the training and other bodies concerned. They are approaching individual local authorities about the resources which they can and will deploy, bearing in mind their statutory duties in the field of road safety. I entirely take the points that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made, but I hope that in view of these reassurances the noble Lord will not press his amendment. We are very sensitive to the concern which lies behind it, and I hope that be will take my assurances on the proposals that we have.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I readily accept the assurance of the noble Lord as regards the preparations that the department and the Government are making. It still does not deal with the important question of the first time novice. I hope we may have serious consideration from the Government on this issue, and that these consultations will include the experiment in Scotland, particularly in Lothian. These figures are so illuminating—and I am sure they are correct—and they show the necessity for something more to be done on the first time novice. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [New provisions as to offences relating to alcohol and drugs]:
10.23 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("(6) For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (5) above a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not extend to Scotland and nothing in that subsection shall affect any rule of law in Scotland concerning the right of a constable to enter any premises for any purpose.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like also to refer to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28 with which it is related. The purpose of these amendments, taken together, is to deal with the difficult question of whether, and if so to what extent, power should be given to the police to enter private property in order to exercise their powers under the law related to drinking and driving. We discussed this law so far as England and Wales were concerned at some length at Committee stage. I should like now to take the discussion forward from where we left it at Committee stage. The Government have carefully considered the situation, and I should like to express our gratitude for the very full consideration that noble Lords in the Committee stage gave to this matter, and the constructive speeches to which we were treated then.
As I informed the Committee at that time, the Government had provisionally come to the view that a driver's rights should be based on the concept of the home rather than that of trespass. This was because we recognised the special significance which is very widely attached to freedom from intrusion into one's own home, and agreed that there would not be nearly so much support for the view that drivers should be able to seek refuge in other property they might own, such as a shop or office.
However, on further examination we have found that the concept of protecting a motorist in his home produces its own serious problems. If the police are not to enter a person's home to breath test him, should they be able to enter the home of a friend to which he may have gone? If so, then it is surely illogical to allow entry, by force if need be, to the home of an entirely innocent person while denying it to the home of the suspect. If not, then the opportunity for seeking sanctuary is vastly increased.
The view of the Government now is—and as I say, the speeches of noble Lords in Committee have been very helpful in reaching this view—that it is indeed unsatisfactory to allow the present state of the law to be perpetuated and that a power of entry for the police is therefore required, but that such a power is not to be given lightly. The power to require a breath test is a very wide one and does not depend on the constable suspecting that any offence has been committed; he may do it, for example, simply on the suspicion that the driver has alcohol, however little, in his body. And, in the case of a requirement made after a moving traffic offence, although there clearly has to be an offence, it can be a very minor one, which would not itself justify entry onto private property.
The criterion, therefore, in our view, should be not the nature of the property in respect of which the power of entry should be given, but rather the gravity of the suspicion to which the driver's behaviour has given rise. So in these amendments we propose that the police should be empowered to enter any place, whether or not it is the driver's home, and by force if need be, but only in clearly specified circumstances. These would be that they have reasonable grounds to suspect either that a person in that place not merely had alcohol in his body, but had consumed so much alcohol or drugs that his conduct was an offence under Section 5 of the 1972 Act—that is, the offence of
392
driving or being in charge while unfit to drive through drink or drugs—or, alternatively, that he had been involved in an accident in which someone else had suffered injury.
In this way, the power of entry will be confined, and in our view properly confined, to those cases in which the grounds for suspicion are so serious as fully to justify, in the general public interest, the exceptional step of allowing the police to enter a person's property against his will. Of course, a person arrested on suspicion of the Section 5 offence would be required to provide an evidential specimen at the police station and could be charged under either Section 5 or Section 6, according to the evidence.
I trust that noble Lords will feel that this solution represents a proper balance of the interests of the public and the individual on this difficult subject and will approve the amendment. Your Lordships will see that we have drawn on the ideas that were expressed in Committee and have tried to bring them together. I should say that if the amendments to which I referred are accepted, then the alternative suggestions in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the amendment to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would not be appropriate but, as I said, we have tried to take account of those in formulating our point of view. The criterion of "accident" which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested, and which is modified in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is in fact adopted in our proposal by reference to an accident which has caused personal injury to someone other than the driver.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has asked me to speak on her behalf, as she is unable to be here today. She wrote on 30th June to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to see her letter, but the substance of it—and it involved a question—was that she was satisfied that it was in effect bringing the law of England and Wales into line with the law of Scotland on the principle of entry by the police under certain circumstances.
The noble Lady goes on to say:
"However I am a little concerned as to the position should a constable forcibly enter premises which turned out to be the wrong premises, and I think this could happen accidentally at night in particular where he pursued a car to a street of houses and was not certain as to which house his quarry had entered, and forcibly entered the wrong house, which might be temporarily unoccupied".
The noble Lady concludes by asking:
"Would the police be liable for damage?"
I think that it is an important point and if it is possible for my noble and learned friend to answer it now, well and good, but otherwise perhaps I may say on behalf of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that she would be very keen to have an answer to the question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I very much appreciate the consideration which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given to the discussions at the Committee stage, and from the three amendments which we have tabled it is fairly clear that the consideration has been very detailed. I am still very concerned about a point that was emphasised at the

393
Committee stage and which the Government Ministers not only in this House but in the other place emphasised; namely, that the last thing that anybody would want would be that a constable, thinking that someone had been involved in an accident, should chase him to his home and immediately insist on breathalysing him. Now, under this amendment not only can the constable chase the man to his home but he can forcibly enter it. I am certain that this is a point which the Ministers have considered in depth, but there is a complete change here from the view-points expressed not only in this House, but also in the other place; I shall not weary the House by going into the speeches that were made.
I was hoping that in the consideration of this matter the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might have been able to follow the line that he had mentioned, in order to achieve a balance between doing the right thing where a person is involved in drinking and driving and at the same time preserving the position regarding a person's home and the right of forcible entry by the police; and I am still very worried about that aspect.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to the Government for the consideration that they have given to this matter. I felt that the Bill as originally drafted was a little too lax. On the other hand, though sympathising with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I felt that it was a little strong, bearing in mind that we must be extremely careful about giving the police the right to force entry into a person's home. As I understand it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as originally drafted, would have covered all accidents, including damage caused to a person's own car, for instance, by his hitting his gatepost, scraping the side of the car as he went into his own drive. That is why I drafted an amendment to the amendment.
While the Government's amendment refers to injury to a person or persons, it says nothing about damage to other people's property. What happens where a man, who has had too much to drink, drives down an entire road of parked cars, hitting each one, as often happens? There might be up to £100 worth of damage caused to six, seven or eight cars. This is quite a grave matter, and I wonder whether it ought to be taken into consideration, bearing in mind that people are likely to lose their no claims bonuses and be put to a vast amount of trouble and inconvenience.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell my noble and learned friend that I do not like what he has come up with. I think that he has gone too far. One would be tempted to recall what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said about being fastidious in trying to define this point too carefully. On the other hand, I do not think that we have defined it at all, since, if I understand my noble and learned friend correctly, we have now moved away from the particular place of sanctuary, because we cannot define it properly, and we have moved to the gravity of the suspicion. I do not think that that is quite good enough. I do not think that we can allow policemen to barge into people's homes, if necessary
394
by force, because they have a grave suspicion that an offence might have been committed. I think he has got to have something more than suspicion before he goes barging into houses. I think that an accident, an injury, an offence of a serious nature, has got to have been committed, and observed by the police to have been committed, before he can go chasing people. In no way do I condone the behaviour of the man who ran away from the police to avoid being breathalysed, or whatever it was—the case that was widely reported.
I also recall that at the Committee stage my noble and learned friend said that the number of these cases was small, and it was the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who asked, "What is small? Can you define it?" The noble and learned Lord said, no, he could not, but he thought it was perhaps 5 or 10 per cent. of cases; he thought that was small. If it is that small we need not go quite as far. I think that on balance I rather prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, which goes some way towards meeting the requirement.
One might now say to my noble and learned friend, whether it is Lord Underhill's amendment or the Government's amendment: So the policeman gains entry. Goodness me! What is he going to do then? It is absolutely too easy for the alleged offender to have taken a glass of spirit while he was in that house while the policeman was attempting to gain entry, and the whole thing falls flat—or does it not? I do not know. I do not want to be mischievous, but those learned in the law will find all sorts of reasons for doing this, but those of us who have a more practical application can see a lot of difficulties. I must say that I am not too happy with what I have heard. I would much sooner have another look at this in the quiet light of day.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, so far as I understand the position, the amendment set down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, goes further in permitting entry than the Government's amendment on the question of entry into a person's house, because Lord Underhill's amendment would allow it in the case of any accident, I think, that was properly described as an accident at all, whereas our amendment would restrict it to an accident—
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Frankly, I would have been only too happy to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to put that right.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, but my noble friend Lord Lucas was referring to Lord Underhill's amendment, and I just wanted to explain the relationship, that our amendment requires, based on the accident point, that the accident should be one involving personal injury to another. So far as the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is concerned, in the sort of case to which he has referred I would think that there was very likely reasonable cause to suspect that the person driving the car was guilty of an offence under subsection (5), and the first branch of our proposed amendment would apply to it.

395
If I may go back to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chtlworth, I think it is important to emphasise that it is "reasonable cause" for suspicion. In other words, there must be something more than just an idea in the policeman's head; there must be some circumstance to which the policeman can point which would entitle a reasonable person to suspect that the person concerned, the person who is being pursued, had been guilty of the offence in question.
As to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, speaking for Lady Saltoun, I think the situation is that so far as Scotland is concerned no change is being proposed because, as I said, it is in England and Wales that this problem has really arisen. The effect of the amendments is broadly to bring the two into line. I think in most circumstances to which the injury case applies the law of Scotland would also permit entry, but the way in which it is expressed in Scotland is much more flexible. It is a common law approach; and therefore I do not think it is quite right to say that they are absolutely in line in that respect.
So far as mistake is concerned, I think the answer to the question there would depend upon whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one. The constable, as far as our amendments are concerned for England and Wales, would be entitled to go into a particular house only if he had reasonable grounds to suspect that the person in question was in that house. I hope that that answers the questions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 20, line 13, at end insert—
("(4) An offence under section 7(4) set out in Schedule 8 shall be included among the offences involving discretionary disqualification (within the meaning of Part III of the 1972 Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Provisions substituted for ss. 6 to 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1972]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 69, line 36, at end insert ("the requirement is made under subsection (2) and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this minor amendment corrects a small error in the Bill by which the power which the police now have to require a driver to provide a breath specimen at a police station after an accident is extended to other cases where a breath specimen can be required. The amendment restores the status quo. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 69, line 38, leave out from ("constable") to end of line 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 70, line 7, at end insert—
("(6) For the purpose of requiring a person to provide a specimen of breath under subsection (2) above in a case where he has reasonable cause to suspect that the accident involved injury to another person or of arresting him in such a case under subsection (5) above a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not extend to Scotland and nothing in that subsection shall affect any rule of law in Scotland concerning the right of a constable to enter any premises for any purpose.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, are we going on to the next amendment? It is a very important one and we might have to take some time on it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it would be right to put the Question on Amendment No. 28 before deciding whether we go on from there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble and learned friend, have indicated that the next amendment will take a bit of time. I must say that I am a little disappointed with the progress. I had very much hoped that we would get to Amendment No. 33 today, so that we could start on the mass of seat belt amendments first time round on Wednesday. But, in view of the lateness of the hour and in view of the fact that we are going to have to sit tomorrow, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, might agree with me that it would be a good thing to postpone further consideration for the moment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip is quite right in thinking that we have reached the point in our consideration of this Bill at which it would be appropriate to terminate our proceedings. I am sorry that we have not got as far as the noble Lord had hoped, but we have endeavoured to move as quickly as possible this evening. There are a number of intricate and difficult points which your Lordships have had to consider. I am sure that it was right and proper that we should have taken the time necessary to consider the various amendments which have been before us this evening. I am certain that when we resume the Report stage of these proceedings on the Transport Bill next week we shall endeavour to make sufficient progress so that we shall be able to complete the Report stage of the Bill then. I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Chief Whip that this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the proceedings this evening.
Consideration on Report adjourned.

Northumbrian Water Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.
Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SCHOOL PLACES AND PUPILS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SCHOOL PLACES AND PUPILS
  PRISON STANDING ORDERS: PUBLICATION
  PRISON STANDING ORDERS: PUBLICATION
  PRISONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
  PRISONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
  CHARITY COMMISSION: INVESTMENT INFORMATION
  CHARITY COMMISSION: INVESTMENT INFORMATION
  CHARITY COMMISSION: INTEREST ON INVESTMENT
  CHARITY COMMISSION: INTEREST ON INVESTMENT
  MR. PETER SUTCLIFFE: PUBLICITY
  MR. PETER SUTCLIFFE: PUBLICITY
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS: BENEFIT DECISIONS
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS: BENEFIT DECISIONS
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FAMILIES
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FAMILIES
  PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS: INSTRUCTIONS
  PORT MEDICAL OFFICERS: INSTRUCTIONS
  COUNTY COUNCIL EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS' VOTING RIGHTS
  COUNTY COUNCIL EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS' VOTING RIGHTS