Sitting of 30 June 1982

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

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 12th June 1979 relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be further amended, by inserting Mr. Ken Eastham.— [Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WOOLWORTH (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  Mr. Speaker: Questions and answers have been getting longer recently. It will enable more questions to be called and answered if brevity is the order of the day.
  SCOTLAND

    Scotmap
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the local authorities and the independent bus operators on the Scotmap proposals; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I welcome the Scotmap objectives of providing more cost-efficient bus services, better tailored to local needs. Detailed proposals arising from Scotmap studies are, however, for discussion between the bus company and the local authority concerned.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that if these rationalisation proposals go through they will have a serious impact on the local independent bus companies, on which the rural communities rely? Is he further aware that there will be serious inconvenience to the travelling public?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the independent operators, especially in rural communities. Detailed decisions affecting his constituency are, of course, for the Western SMT and the regional council, and I have no doubt that they will take full note of my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Corrie: What effect is the phasing out of the new bus grant having on bus services? Is my hon. Friend not worried that, with a lot of older buses on the roads, there will be a lack of safety standards among those buses?
    Mr. Stewart: I am happy completely to reassure my hon. Friend about safety. On the SBG's finances, we believe that the existing target of 4½ per cent. per annum on net fixed assets is moderate and reasonable.

    Select Committee on Scottish Affairs
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes on the latest report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I am considering the report. I shall respond to the Select Committee as soon as possible.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that that excellent man the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—deserves the congratulations of the whole House on the report, which has been even better received in my constituency than the determination to extend development area status to Orkney and Shetland? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it will not be allowed to moulder in that revolting building, New St. Andrew's House, and in particular that he will pay attention to the proposals on road equivalent tariff and on reducing the price of petrol? What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have on those two matters?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his warm compliment to the work of my neighbour in Ayrshire, which I, too, greatly appreciate. I am also grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the assisted area status in Shetland. I join him in welcoming the Select Committee's excellent report. I shall study all of its recommendations with great care and respond as soon as possible.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that I join in the congratulations on this very useful and helpful report? However, as he has gone some way towards assisting shipping services on the West Coast, will he now set a deadline for the introduction of the road equivalent tariff?
    Mr. Younger: I am not very keen on setting a deadline. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have moved a long way towards the road equivalent tariff, as we undertook to do. The grant has been more than doubled in cash terms and stands at £10·6 million, which is a great advance.
    There are many different views about what would be the best form of road equivalent tariff. Some areas think that they might gain while others think that they might not gain so much. We must get the answers right before we finalise the matter.
    Mr. Myles: Despite the praise that he gives the report, does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion to zero rate petrol and transfer the cost to petrol duty would be a retrograde step in country areas?
    Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend said. I would prefer not to make a detailed comment about that until I have had the opportunity to study it. I greatly welcome the fact that the Select Committee has gone into the problem of the price of petrol in rural areas.
    Mr. Lambie: I accept the congratulations of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Select Committee's report. I do not know whether the Secretary

    877
    of State is congratulating me on the good report or on the fact that I am giving him 7,000 Tory voters from Troon following redistribution of the boundaries. May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that this was the unanimous report of a Select Committee with a Conservative majority? I hope that he will implement its findings as quickly as possible. As a means of making progress towards that aim, will he provide an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the report?
    Mr. Younger: The latter point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants a debate, he can make a request. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is best that such an important document should be carefully considered. I shall do that as quickly as I can.

    National Health Service (Dispute)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the Health Service workers dispute.
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement regarding the dispute in the National Health Service in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The effects of the dispute have been damaging to the care of patients in Scotland, with some areas and services being more seriously affected than others. In some cases the trade unions have failed to provide even the basic levels of service required by their code of practice. Whatever the feelings on their pay claim, there can be no justification for the trade unions' action in withdrawing essential services from those least able to look after themselves.
    The Government last week authorised an improved offer to nurses and professions supplementary to medicine of 7·5 per cent., to ambulancemen and pharmacists of 6·5 per cent., and to other staff of 6 per cent. I hope that all staff concerned will accept that these increases are reasonable and realistic in present circumstances and will now return to normal working.
    Mr. Canavan: Now that a conciliatory meeting has been arranged between the trade unions and ACAS, will the Government depart from their inflexible attitude and agree to meet the ACAS chairman in order to give further consideration to the justifiable 12 per cent. wage claim? What the Government have offered so far is an insult and amounts to a wage decrease in real terms to nurses and other ancillary workers who are essential to the survival of the National Health Service, founded by a previous Labour Government but threatened with destruction by the present Tory Government?
    Mr. MacKay: There has been real growth in the Health Service since this Government took over from the Labour Government. As for inflexibility, we showed in our offer last week of 6 per cent., 6·5 per cent., and 7·5 per cent. a degree of flexibility. The inflexibility has come from the trade union side, which has stuck rigidly to a demand of 12 per cent. and above.
    Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister accept that the trade unions, far from being inflexible, are very flexible? It is the trade unions that have asked to see ACAS next Tuesday. The Government have so far made no
    878
    conciliatory moves in the dispute. Will the Minister accept that, even under the Government's improved offer, according to official figures published in The Guardian today student nurses will actually be worse off financially? When will the Government see sense in this dispute? They are just as responsible as anyone else for damaging patient care.
    Mr. MacKay: The Government have said all along that they are not prepared to sanction a recourse to arbitration. It would be wrong to subcontract to some independent body the decision about how much the Government and the taxpayer can afford. The increases that we announced last week, which show flexibility on our side not matched on the other side, are believed by the Government to be fair and in line with settlements of about 6 per cent. in comparable parts of the public sector.
    Mr. Ancram: In the light of my hon. Friend's reply that the trade unions in certain areas were not acting in accordance with the trade union code of practice, will he identify the hospitals where the code has not been adhered to?
    Mr. MacKay: There are a number of hospitals in Scotland, including, I think, some in my hon. Friend's constituency, where, during some of the time in the last five weeks, the code of practice was not adhered to—
    Mr. Canavan: Which ones?
    Mr. MacKay: There were two hospitals affected in Edinburgh during the laundry dispute, which, fortunately, has been partially resolved.
    Mr. Canavan: There are more than two hospitals in Edinburgh. Name them.
    Mr. MacKay: They were the Edinburgh Royal infirmary and the Royal Edinburgh mental hospital.
    No reduction in the level of care for seriously ill and highly dependent patients is regarded as acceptable by the Government. When large hospitals like the two that I have mentioned and others are left without catering staff, porters and cleaners, and when soiled linen is allowed to pile up for days on end and there are insufficient quantities of clean bedding or clothes for elderly and mentally ill patients, it is clear that the standards of care have fallen below a tolerable level and that the code of practice is not being obeyed.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Minister accept that if there is any inconvenience to patients, the responsibility lies squarely on the Government? Will he accept from me that the final word has not been said on this matter by a long way? How can the hon. Gentleman and the Government say in the same breath that there is no extra money for National Health Service employees but that there will be at least £1,000 million available for financing the Falkland Islands fiasco?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The figure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned yesterday was £500 million for this financial year out of the Contingency Fund. That comes out of the Contingency Fund.
    Mr. Willian Hamilton: Then pay the nurses out of it.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand what the Contingency Fund means. Let me reiterate. Last week we offered a reasonable increase

    879
    consistent with increases to teachers, to civil servants and, indeed, to the Armed Forces. I hope that workers in the National Health Service will at least take away our offer and consider it, as the nurses are prepared to do.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nurses are a special case and that this has already been recognised by the Government? Does he further agree that during the winter of discontent the National Health Service unions, along with other unions, brought about the demise of the Labour Government so that they could return to free collective bargaining.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is that what they have?
    Mr. Walker: Part of free collective bargaining is job security, holidays and pensions. All of this has to be computed when one is working out wages, particularly at a time—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. MacKay: Our record of expenditure on the National Health Service and increases that we have given to the nurses, in particular, since the last election, are matters of which we can be proud. They contrast with the increases given by the Labour Government which ended up in all the trouble of the winter of 1978–79, which Opposition Members seem to have suddenly and completely forgotten.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Under-Secretary justify giving different levels of pay increases to different people working in the National Health Service, especially as he has recognised the importance of porters and laundry workers in keeping the service going? What justification exists for widening differentials when people are already taking a very real cut in their standard of living.?
    Mr. Mackay: In making an offer of 7·5 per cent. to the nurses and professions supplementary to medicine we are recognising their special position within the National Health Service as the people who give direct patient care. We are also recognising the expensive training that equips them for their position in the Health Service. I am certain, whatever the Opposition may say, that the people of this country recognise that it is right to pay special attention in wage negotiations to the particular case of nurses and professions supplementary to medicine.
    Mr. Canavan: Give them the 12 per cent. then.

    Rating Reform
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce the proposed content and timing of legislation to reform the rating system in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Not yet. The diverse public responses to the options set out in the Green Paper merit careful consideration.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that progress should be made towards achieving a much fairer and more equitable form of taxation system in this respect, however much the ratepayers of Lothian region may be delighted with the reduction in rates following the local elections?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reactions to the Green Paper have reinforced our
    880
    impression that ratepayers of all classes are anxious for early relief from the rates burden. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the new Lothian administration's early decision that its ratepayers should benefit from a reduction in expenditure that will lead to an average saving of £43 for every domestic ratepayer.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister remember that we were derided when we opposed the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982 and suggested that partial revaluation had handicaps? Does he also remember that only on 17 May he was pouring cold water on our doubts? Is he aware that we welcome his repeal of the order and the postponement of partial revaluation? Does he agree that the clear implication of that retreat is that something has gone seriously wrong with the implementation of plans for electoral reform that were easily given in an electoral promise?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly not. My right hon. Friend responded positively to CoSLA's representations and decided not to go ahead with partial revaluation in 1982–83. We shall go ahead instead with full revaluation in 1985–86. That decision demonstrates the seriousness with which my right hon. Friend and I take representations from CoSLA.
    Mr. Maclennan: What steps will the Government take to relieve commercial premises of the rate burden?
    Mr. Stewart: We have consistently made it clear that proposals for the reform of the rating system will take fully into account the interests of industrial and commercial ratepayers.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the devastating effect that high rates are having on the hotel industry and, therefore, on the tourist industry in Scotland? Does he envisage any relief for that sector of the economy?
    Mr. Stewart: I have received representations on that point. We are studying several detailed aspects of the problem.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: For the benefit of hon. Members with short memories, will the Minister repeat his party's pledge about rate reform? Does he agree that the increased unpopularity of rates has been due largely to the inflationary policies of the Government and the reduction of rate support grant?
    Mr. Stewart: I reiterate that the specific pledge to abolish domestic rates in one Parliament was given in the Conservative manifesto of 1974—not 1979, which was the election that the Conservatives won. We have made clear our commitment to reforming the rating system in the long term.

    Hamilton College of Education
    Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement about the sale of the former Hamilton college of education buildings.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Prospective purchasers have been informed that the property is available for disposal either as a whole or in lots and have been invited to submit firm offers by 23 July.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that today the doors closed on Lanarkshire's fine college of education at Hamilton, and that responsibility for that contemptible act of educational damage lies fairly and squarely at his door? Will he assure the House that there is no possibility of his agreeing to an elitist private school taking over these buildings? Will he also assure the House that the acute shortage of student accommodation, which has been occasioned by the residences closing, will be greeted with help from the Scottish Education Department?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the college closed because it virtually ran out of students as a result of the diminishing demand for teachers and the falling school population in Scotland. The Government have always made it clear that we should like the buildings to continue in educational use. So far, no offer has been submitted by any education authority in the West of Scotland.

    Ayr (Redundancies)
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many redundancies have been notified to his Department in Ayr during the past three months.
    Mr. Younger: Since 1 April 1982 two instances of redundancy involving 10 or more people have been notified to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in the Ayr employment office area with the loss of 109 jobs.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of those enforced redundancies was to be at Wallacetown Engineering? Will he, like my colleagues from Ayrshire, welcome the fact that the management has acceded to the trade unions' legitimate claims and that normal work will resume tonight or tomorrow, thus ending an 11-week occupation of the factory, which was justified as it was in pursuit of legitimate aims?
    Is he not ashamed that he did not join Labour Members from Ayrshire in applying pressure to the management to bring about an early and successful conclusion to the dispute, thus alleviating some of the misery and hardship that was suffered by the families of those who were forced to fight to justify their trade union rights?
    Mr. Younger: I, too, am relieved that the protracted dispute ended yesterday as a result of an agreement between the management and the trade unions concerned. I deplore the actions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. They encouraged a dispute that has done grave damage to the future of many people's jobs in my constituency. I should have much preferred it if they had not done so.
    Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's modesty. Will he tell the House some of the good things that have happened in Ayrshire, especially with regard to Scottish Aviation, for which Government contracts are important in the long-term future?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He may like to know that since May 1979 we have made no fewer than 12 offers of selective financial assistance to firms in the Ayr employment office area. That has involved more than 2,300 jobs and associated investment of about £66 million. My hon. Friend will also know that we have given special assistance to British Aerospace,
    882
    Caledonian Airmotive and the Digital Equipment Company, all of which have been expanding their employment.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my three hon. Friends from Ayrshire who joined the trade unions to save jobs? Rather than bleating, would it not be better if he took a leaf out of their book and fought a little harder to save more jobs in the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Younger: It would help a great deal if the hon. Gentleman learnt his facts before intervening in these matters. He may not be aware that the company was seriously considering expansion before the strike took place. I am depressed by the fact that the strike cannot have helped that prospect. I hope that the expansion will still take place.

    National Health Service (Dispute)
    Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about industrial action in hospitals in Scotland.
    Mr. John MacKay: We have received a range of comments from health boards, outside organisations and members of the public on the continuing difficulties for hospital patients that have been caused by the current dispute.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole basis of the Health Service is that patient care comes first? Does he agree that the continuing support and sympathy for workers in the Health Service has been eroded by the callous way in which they have disregarded the interests of patients in Scotland? Are the Government prepared to take every step, even if it includes crossing picket lines, to ensure that patient care comes first?
    Mr. MacKay: I agree that the spectacle of patients being put at risk and in great discomfort cannot have done the Health Service unions' case any good. The sooner they think about that, the better. We are fortunate that most nurses and many other staff have continued to work throughout the dispute. Many of them have worked far beyond their normal duties. We should be grateful to them for their efforts to keep up services for the care of patients. I strongly deprecate the efforts of outside bodies to politicise the decision at the expense of patients and their care.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to allow the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland greater autonomy in the design and implementation of measures to aid the unemployed.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Manpower Services Commission in Scotland already has considerable autonomy in the implementation of measures to aid the unemployed and Ministers and the Commission consult closely on the design of such measures.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he received a letter from the Scottish Council for Social Service which said that more than 30 voluntary organisations will not participate in any scheme for phoney

    883
    employment for adults? Will he ensure that any such schemes in Scotland satisfy two important criteria: first, that those participating have the full status of employed persons; and, secondly, that they are paid the right wage for the job?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman should know that the schemes put into operation by the MSC in Scotland and elsewhere are agreed by employers, trade union representatives and others on the local committees. The local committees are themselves important and the MSC committee for Scotland makes a great contribution towards ensuring that the schemes are as useful and practical as possible for the unemployed and others who are training.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Why is the Minister allowing the MSC establishment in Scotland to be cut by a far higher percentage than that in England, where unemployment is lower?
    Mr. Fletcher: The studies of manpower in the MSC apply on a United Kingdom basis. The MSC in Scotland is performing its functions very satisfactorily. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the MSC is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as well as to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and my right hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new training initiative has a much better prospect of being successful in Scotland because we have a Minister with responsibility for education and industry, both of which will be essential elements if the project is to be as successful as we all wish?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I agree entirely.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister look at this again, as in my constituency it is proposed to close down one jobcentre and to reduce the number of staff at the other? In the jobcentre that may be closed as a result of this so-called economy, youth unemployment is remarkable, and 44 per cent. of young people unemployed have been out of work for a year or more.
    Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman will know that if it is planned to close a jobcentre in his constituency other jobcentres are being opened elsewhere in the West of Scotland. This is a matter of MSC planning in considering the use and uptake of places at jobcentres, which is low in some parts of the country despite high unemployment.
    Mr. Millan: How will opening a jobcentre elsewhere help the people of Greenock?
    Mr. Fletcher: It depends on the uptake of places at the jobcentre. These are matters that the MSC or any other organisation must take into account.

    Salmon Stocks
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry to investigate the problem of reduced salmon stocks in Scottish rivers.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so, but he is watching this situation carefully.
    Mr. Myles: I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a keen angler, is aware of the fall in salmon stocks. Is he aware of the serious effects of this on rural economies in areas such as Speyside and Deveronside?
    Mr. MacKay: I am well aware of the problem. I am also aware of the reported decline this year, particularly from salmon netting stations. There is, however, no further evidence to show whether this is a temporary decline or a long-term change. A working party is examining matters relevant to the international management of salmon stock and I hope that the creation of the Atlantic salmon convention will be useful in this regard.
    Mr. Grimond: As the problem has been going on for some time, presumably the Scottish Office has been examining it for some time. If there is not to be an investigation, what conclusions has the Minister reached about the reasons for the decline in stocks?
    Mr. MacKay: At the risk of indulging in a lecture on the cyclical nature of salmon, I should point out that it is early in the year to make a global decision about the decline in stocks. We all realise that stocks are under pressure, but, as has been found in previous years, the grilse run later in the year may be higher than usual. Therefore, we should wait until the end of the year to review the position. Nevertheless, we have been attempting to control and keep down the number of salmon caught off Greenland and the Faroes, both of which areas have increased interception of Atlantic salmon and are undoubtedly causing damage.

    Company Liquidations
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies went into liquidation in Scotland during 1979, 1980 and 1981, respectively.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The total number of compulsory and creditors' voluntary liquidations—the two types that involve insolvency—recorded in Scotland in 1979, 1980 and 1981 were 238, 379 and 438, respectively.
    Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the question has not been answered, but that is typical of the Government. The record speaks for itself. Instead of the economic miracle—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. He can get that point in if he puts it in the form of a question.
    Mr. Brown: The record speaks for itself—[Interruption.] Does it not? Is the Minister aware that an economic miracle has not taken place despite the Government's assurances? Is he also aware that Scotland is suffering as a result of the Government's attitude and is clearly in desperate straits? Does the Minister appreciate that production is lower than it was at the time of the three-day week, which was bad enough? Does he further appreciate that Scotland and its economy has suffered more—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has given the Minister enough to appreciate.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that, whereas the number of liquidations that I mentioned were of the order of 200 or

    885
    300, the numbers of new companies registered in Scotland were 3,514, 3,270 and 3,475 last year. He will also wish to know that in his own constituency the Robb Caledon shipyard has recently won three orders—two for Sealink Ferries and one for an oil supply ship for Norway. In my constituency, which borders his, Brown Brothers and Co. (Engineers) has gained a £23 million order to supply steam catapults and stabilisers to the United States Navy.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large number of those smaller companies were established as a result of the Government's efforts to encourage enterprise in Scotland?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is encouraging that new businesses are starting up in Scotland at a satisfactory rate.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: As the Minister seems to be well briefed with detailed figures, will he tell us how many jobs were lost as a result of the liquidations and how many were created as a result of the new companies starting up?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the unemployment figures in Scotland. He will also be aware that what Scotland needs more than anything else is a growing number of new companies. The figures that I have given reveal that, whereas 200 or 300 companies have been liquidated every year, 2,000 or 3,000 companies have been formed every year, and that is good.

    Sheriffs (Appointments)
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that, in the appointment of sheriffs, experience is taken fully into account and that long-serving temporary sheriffs are placed at no disadvantage.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, my right hon. Friend's aim is to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of the best qualified person at any given time. Service as a temporary sheriff is one of a number of factors that are taken into consideration.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the present system gives absolute power of patronage to the Lord Advocate? Is he aware of concern over recent appointments, and does he agree that a clear-cut set of rules should govern appointments to the Bench in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have not received complaints about the appointments system.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Minister consult the sheriffs principal on this matter as well as taking all other circumstances into account?
    Mr. Stewart: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the views of the sheriffs principal are taken into account by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate before he makes a nomination.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the patronage system of sheriff appointments in Scotland is so corrupt that I am forced to advise my constituents, if they are interested in a fair trial, not to appear before Sheriff Principal Taylor, another failed Tory parliamentary candidate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Canavan:—because of the way in which—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Canavan: Because of the way in which he tried to gerrymander the parliamentary constituencies in favour of the Tory Party?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very fortunate that I did not order him to leave the Chamber. He knows that he should sit down when I stand up. He also knows that he is not entitled to criticise a judge, as I gather that he was doing, without putting down a motion on the Order Paper.

    Coal Output and Electricity Generation
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current relationship between coal output and the generation of electricity by the Scottish boards.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In the year ended 31 March 1982 coal-fired plant produced 59 per cent. of the output of electricity of the Scottish boards. The Scottish electricity boards purchase 71·6 per cent. of the National Coal Board's output in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that if that ratio continues into the foreseeable future it will be essential that the future of the Invergordon smelter is decided, because of the high proportion of electricity that it uses? When can the Minister make that decision, because it is important to my constituents, who produce coal for power stations and factories?
    Mr. Fletcher: We hope to reach a decision on the future of the Invergordon smelter within the next few weeks. We are still conducting negotiations with companies. In the event that efforts to reopen the smelter are successful, it is estimated that the coal burn will be three-quarters of a million tonnes higher annually.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend accept that coal remains the most important indigenous source of energy available to this country and that that fact must be reflected in any future energy generating programme? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the political posturings of Mr. Arthur Scargill and Mr. Mick McGahey are endangering what would otherwise be a secure future for the coal miners, because the generating industry requires stability of supply?
    Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is worse, Mr. Scargill damages not only the prospects of the coal industry, but those of the Health Service, too.
    Mr. Millan: Does the Minister appreciate that the closure of the Invergordon smelter has resulted in a reduction of no less than three-quarters of a million tonnes of coal consumption by the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Is he also aware that the reopening of the smelter is crucial, not only for the area, but for the coal industry and many other industries in Scotland? Is the Minister further aware that there are disturbing press reports to the effect that most of the potential buyers for the Invergordon smelter have now lost interest and that the power contract on offer is either inadequate or not even specific? Can he

    887
    say what is happening in the negotiations and give an absolute pledge that the Government will make a full statement on this matter within the next few weeks?
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I are fully aware of the importance of the efforts to reopen the Invergordon smelter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the biggest single obstacle is the state of the world aluminium market. That is why so many companies have withdrawn from the negotiations. However, there are still two or three companies with which we are in urgent consultation. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House as soon as he has full information.

    Gourock-Dunoon Ferry
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the arrangements now made for the operation of the Gourock to Dunoon ferry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: It is satisfactory that the residents of Cowal continue to have a choice of ferry services, that it has been possible to continue to provide a high standard of service for foot passengers, and that it has been possible to reduce the subsidy being paid to Caledonian MacBrayne in respect of this service in 1982–83 to half the level required in the previous year.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that that choice has largely been preserved because the Conservative Government had to retreat in disorder from their original ludicrous proposals for the ferry service? Is the Minister aware that the firm expected to be the principal beneficiary is now so upset that it is considering going to law? Will the Minister note that when that possibility has been exhausted we shall return to the matter?
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister assure the House that, to assuage the feelings of uncertainty among my constituents, and others, there will be no proposals from the Government to withdraw or modify services? Will the Minister confirm that preparations are being made to sustain services for the financial year 1983–84?
    Mr. Stewart: I can confirm that that is the Government's intention.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that competition is a strong lever to bring about cuts in costs and improve efficiency, and that, having saved on the subsidy on those runs, there will be subsidies for other Calmac runs in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of competition in this area, as in many others.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many long-term unemployed were registered in the Kilbirnie, Saltcoats and Irvine employment exchange areas at the last available date; and how this compares with the same time in 1979, 1980 and 1981.
    Mr. Younger: On 15 April 1982, 3,318 people in the Kilbirnie, Saltcoats and Irvine employment office areas had been registered as unemployed for more than one year. The comparable figures for 1979, 1980 and 1981 were 1,324, 1,370 and 1,903, respectively.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to admit that he is the Minister responsible for employment in Scotland? Is he aware that not only is North Ayrshire a disaster area for unemployment, but that figures show that it is also another disaster area for the long-term unemployed, many of whom have been unemployed for over a year? When will the right hon. Gentleman get off his backside and stop sending his hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and sport to Spain to attend football matches—with no apparent benefit—and start worrying about unemployment in the North Ayrshire area?
    Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's great concern about unemployment in North Ayrshire, particularly the long-term unemployed. However, I should not have expected that even he would accuse me of inaction. He must bear in mind what has been done to help the area. As part of the West Scotland special development area, the North Ayrshire area qualifies for maximum assistance. That was brought in by the Conservative Government, not the Labour Government. Since May 1979 we have made 19 offers of selective financial assistance to firms in the area. That involves over 1,470 new jobs. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of inactivity, but I share his concern at the unemployment figures.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 10 June 1982, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 314,800 or 14·1 per cent. We have substantially increased the programme of special measures in the current financial year, but our strategy of controlling inflation within a sound financial framework, and restoring competitiveness, is the best way to improve employment prospects, both in Scotland and elsewhere; and I am encouraged by the progress that we are making.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that the non-seasonally adjusted figure is 341,200 and that that is up by 16,500 since last month, representing 15·3 per cent. of the population? When will the Under-Secretary understand that the policies that he repeats month after month at the Dispatch Box are proving to be an abject failure and a disaster? Will he agree to change course and do something for the unemployed in Scotland instead of repeating, ad nauseam, policies that do not work, and cannot work?
    Mr. Fletcher: Policies that reduce inflation, reduce wage settlements, reduce interest rates and improve exports and the balance of payments can only be good for Scotland, despite what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister prepared to hold out any realistic hope, with present policies, of a significant reduction in this appalling figure, at least over the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the increase in unemployment has been dramatically reduced, but it is still increasing, and is likely to do so, at least for some months yet. The right hon. Gentleman should not disagree with the Government's policies, as they are close to his policies on expenditure when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the unacceptable rate of unemployment, there is a

    889
    growing public realisation that there are no easy answers to the problem and that the Government's economic policy provides the only long-term hope for the unemployed? Does he further agree that this was demonstrated by the positive swing from Labour to Conservative in the Coatbridge and Airdrie by-election?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the by-election at Coatbridge and Airdrie and in the local government elections in Scotland it was obvious that the population of Scotland had far more sense in these matters than Labour Members.
    Mr. Thomas Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the swing to Labour in the Coatbridge and Airdrie by-election, compared with the swing in the two elections in 1974—which resulted in a Labour Government—would lead to a Labour Government with an even bigger majority in a general election? Is he further aware that the lack of confidence in the Government's policies, particularly on unemployment, displayed by the electorate of Coatbridge and Airdrie is widely reflected among the voters of Scotland, who look for an early opportunity to give a similar verdict on those policies?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House and to Scottish questions. We look forward to further contributions from him. However, I am sure that he will in future be more accurate, because my awareness, and that of the psephologists, is that the Coatbridge and Airdrie result, reflected throughout the country, would increase the Government's majority.
    Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents in Buckie find it difficult to understand why, despite an unemployment rate of 14·3 per cent. in the area, he has taken away assisted area status, whereas assisted area status is retained for areas such as Inverness, which also have the advantage of Highlands and Islands Development Board grants.
    Mr. Fletcher: I fully appreciate the disappointment in my hon. Friend's constituency following the Government's decision on assisted area status. These have been difficult decisions to make. Nevertheless, following those decisions, 72 per cent. of the working population of Scotland still remain in assisted areas, and Scotland still has the largest special development area in the United Kingdom. Scotland has done well out of the reappraisal of regional policy that this Government introduced.
    Mr. Millan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. To enable me to call the Opposition Front Bench, I shall allow a minute extra at the end of questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). Why did the Secretary of State not answer the question about the appalling level of unemployment in Scotland? Is he not ashamed of the 341,000 unemployed in Scotland, a figure that has doubled during his period of office? If not, he should be. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State stop making all these optimistic noises about an upturn in the economy, when every indicator from the CBI, the Fraser Institute and everyone else predicts further increases in the already tragically high level of unemployment in Scotland?
    Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the impact of the world economy, even on Scotland. Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. The action of my right hon. Friend with regard to these matters is perfectly clear. He is doing everything possible within and without Scotland to make sure that unemployment levels are reduced. Indeed, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, the level of unemployment in Scotland compares very favourably with the rest of the United Kingdom—unlike the record of the right hon. Gentleman, who, while Secretary of State, had the satisfaction of doubling unemployment.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will have further consultations with the procurators fiscal to discuss the operation of part II of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, relating to procedure and evidence; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): There is a continuous flow of information from procurators fiscal to the Crown Office on the operation of all parts of the 1980 Act. Both I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate have had discussions with procurators fiscal and other interested parties on the operation of the Act, and will continue to do so with a view to identifying any difficulties being experienced in connection with the implementation of this legislation.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that great administrative problems arise from the administration of judicial examination? Will he also look at the problems arising from section 2 of the Act, which allows the detention of suspects for questioning by the police? Is he aware that the confidence that he and his colleagues have expressed is not shared by the Criminal Court of Appeal? Has he seen the recent judgment, where Lord Emslie referred to the problem of confusion created by the detention powers, and Lord Cameron said:
    "It is not, indeed, immediately apparent what useful purpose this innovative and possibly confusing provision is designed to serve."
    In those circumstances, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider further amending legislation, as this is clearly an unsatisfactory situation?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A number of points are developing as we gain experience of the working of judicial examination. As to the recent case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that he is referring specifically to the problem of the caution that is given by the police where the powers of detention are exercised. The hon. Gentleman may ruefully reflect that when the measure was in Committee I referred to the efficacy of the warning that is required to be given under that section. I accept and recognise, as the Court of Appeal has said, that there are two stages at which a warning must be given. If the police detain someone without questioning him further, the caution required by section 2(7) is sufficient. However, if the police ask questions, it is clear that they must give a common law caution, and that instruction has already gone from the Crown Office to the police.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 is going down very well in the courts, largely because of the way in which the sheriff principals, such as Sheriff Principal Taylor, are handling it?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In spite of some of the somewhat hysterical over-reactions originally given to this legislation, it is clear that a number of parts of the Act are working extremely well. Despite the fact that it was thought that the police would abuse the powers given to them, a number of people from interested sections involved in the administration of justice in Scotland recognise that they have used them both reasonably and sparingly.

    Kilmarnock
    Mr. Lambieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal of Kilmarnock, to discuss the administration of justice in Kilmarnock.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock. From time to time I do visit the offices of procurators fiscal and discuss relevant matters with them.
    Mr. Lambie: When the Solicitor-General for Scotland meets the procurator fiscal of Kilmarnock, will he ask him when he will take action on the case referred to him claiming that certain consultants employed by Ayrshire and Arran health board were guilty of irregularities? People in Ayrshire are concerned that when the procurator fiscal is dealing with consultants they must wait a long time for a decision, whereas when he is dealing with councillors, decisions are given overnight. When will the procurator fiscal give a decision in this case?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the investigations to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Although I should not like any unnecessary delay before a decision is taken, whether or not it is appropriate to instruct proceedings in this matter, at this stage it would be wholly inappropriate if I were to respond and give any indication about whether a criminal prosecution will be mounted before the investigations are complete.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that there is great resentment among the low-paid health workers in Ballochmyle hospital, who cannot get an increase in pay, while these consultants, who are already well paid, are able to boost their large incomes by what appears to be the illegal provision of private beds? Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must make a statement about this matter, otherwise the rumours and concern will spread far and wide in Ayrshire.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: For once, the hon. Gentleman has advisedly chosen his words carefully. As I have already said, it would be wholly inappropriate for me now to give any view about whether it is right to institute criminal proceedings.

    Scottish Law Commission
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I have no meetings arranged, I meet the Scottish Law Commission from time to time to discuss all aspects of law reform which it is presently considering.
    Mr. Canavan: At the risk of being thrown out for being tedious and repetitive, may I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will remind the Scottish Law Commission that we have been waiting for well over a decade for the publication of its Bill to abolish warrant sales? Is there any chance at all during the lifetime of this Parliament of such a Bill being sponsored by the Government to abolish once and for all this medieval and barbaric practice?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If nothing else, the hon. Gentleman has tenacity on this point. We are awaiting a report from the Scottish Law Commission on the law of diligence. The part that concerns the hon. Gentleman—his concern is shared on both sides of the House—is the aspect that relates to warrant sales. The hon. Gentleman probably recognises that every mature legal system in the world requires an end process to bring to a conclusion the differences between a creditor and a debtor. If the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about arrangements that are made for the public sale of the property in a debtor's home, I have some sympathy with that point. Personally, I await with great interest the proposals that will emanate from the Scottish Law Commission, which I expect will not be long in coming.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The answers are getting as long as the questions.
    Mr. Ancram: Will my hon. and learned Friend discuss once again with the Law Commission the problems of cost and time arising out of accused persons changing their pleas to guilty on the day of the trial diet? Will he ask it to look again at the ways in which the whole paraphernalia of setting up a trial can be avoided when such a change of plea is likely?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The problem of people changing their pleas at a later date is essentially an administrative one. There are a number of schemes which both I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate are considering. I hope that that, in conjunction with a number of provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, will result in an acceleration in the times for diets.
    Mr. Maclennan: Are the Government nearing completion of their consideration of the Law Commission's proposals on aliment and divorce, and do they consider that this is a subject on which they could bring forward proposals for reform?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is recognised that the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are useful. They are being considered by the Scottish Home and Health Department and I await with interest its views on them.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I shall allow an extra minute on this question.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: What is the current state with regard to custody orders as between England and Scotland,

    893
    and what progress has been made on an international convention for custody orders for children of divorced parents?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I remember your recent stricture, Mr. Speaker. It is recognised that there
    894
    continue to be problems over custody orders, particularly in an international context. The Scottish Law Commission, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and myself are aware of the concern that this can cause to parents in such a difficult position.

Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministerial Meetings)
3.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meetings in Brussels of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 28 June and the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 and 29 June.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council.
Agreement was reached on devaluations in the green rates of Denmark, Ireland and Greece to reflect the effects of the recent monetary realignment in the EMS. The French Government had requested a selective devaluation of their green rate for pigmeat and sheepmeat and the Belgian Government wanted equivalent adjustments to those granted to the French. These arrangements for France and Belgium were not agreed.
The Council had further discussions on the new framework regulation on wine, and these will be resumed at the next Council.
Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State in my Department, I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council.
After a general discussion on the Commission's proposals on total allowable catches and quotas, there were a series of bilateral discussions between the Commission and individual member States on establishing priorities. In the course of the meeting it became apparent that the Danish Minister was not prepared at this meeting to negotiate towards a settlement of the common fisheries policy. However, at the end of the meeting the Commission tabled new proposals on the total allowable catches and quotas, and these will be considered at the next meeting of the Council in the second half of July. I shall consult the industry on these proposals.
Mr. Norman Buchan: This tiny mouse of a statement conceals a major surrender by the Government. The Government were preparing to surrender on quotas and limits, and their bacon was saved by the Danes. That was Danish bacon with a vengeance. Is it not the case that the quota agreement that the Minister was prepared to accept was half of that which would be determined by the amount of fish in our waters? Is it not a fact that in its manifesto for the last election campaign the Tory Party said that, unless the limits and the quotas were right, it was prepared to go it alone? Are the Government prepared to go it alone? If they do, they will have the support of the Opposition.
The Minister has been telling us that he has the support of the industry, but he should read the fishing industry newspapers more often. "No deal" say the fishermen's organisations in Britain. We have to stick by the decision, which was repeated in the House year after year, that there would be no surrender beyond the 12-mile exclusive limit and the 50-mile dominant preference.
All the indications are that the Minister is prepared to surrender on both those points. He is opening up the East
896
Coast, for example, through the bilateral agreement with the French. If he is prepared to put forward proposals on 12-mile and 50-mile limits we shall support him.
Would it not have been more sensible, instead of entering into a squalid arrangement under derogation in 1972, if we had decided that we would do what other independent nations have been able to do and stand by a 200-mile limit?
Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will never have the pleasure of seeing me come to the Dispatch Box with an agreement that the industry does not support. Therefore, I am willing to be judged upon our ability to obtain an agreement that the industry wants and agrees with. I presume that the House will be only too eager to support an agreement that the industry requires.
I have complete and detailed agreement with the industry as to our objectives on quotas. I am glad to say that we have made some further progress towards achieving these. Therefore, the only agreement that I would recommend to the House is one that provides quotas satisfactory to the industry, a substantial improvement in the access arrangements that have operated in living memory, and a secure and expanding future for the industry.
Mr. Buchan: Would the Minister agree, for example on the six-mile limit and on the six-mile dominant preference only? Would he agree on only 34 per cent. on quotas, reduced from the two-thirds that the Tory Party manifesto argued for? If not, he should stand by the pledge that he gave in 1979, that in the absence of such an agreement the Government would not hesitate to take the necessary measures on their own.
Mr. Walker: As far as I know, no political party, or the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his wildest moments, ever suggested two-thirds quotas. The hon. Gentleman waves a document at me. If that is the manifesto, let him quote the promise about two-thirds of the quotas.
Mr. Buchan: The manifesto says something that is even stronger:
"United Kingdom waters contained more fish than those of the rest of the Community countries put together".
Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by that?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has been exposed once again in making a false allegation.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that, as he is in the process of negotiating a new common fisheries policy, any question of historic rights to breach the 12-mile limit ought to be disregarded? Does he accept that, if chaos exists because of his failure to secure a policy, it his duty to ensure that the United Kingdom fishing grounds are protected from ravishment by Common Market vessels?
Mr. Walker: My only objective in negotiating is to provide British fishermen, including Scottish fishermen, with a better future than they have had for many years, since we lost the Icelandic waters. If I cannot attain that objective, and the industry does not agree that I can attain it, I shall come to the Dispatch Box and say that there is no agreement.
Sir Peter Mills: All of us who think about these matters acknowledge what the Minister is doing—maintaining a firm stand in the interests of British

897
fishermen. Will he bear in mind that the reaction of the Danes is a serious setback and that he may have to make unilateral plans to deal with this and to protect fishermen, particularly in the South-West of England?
Mr. Walker: This illustrates the failure of the Labour Government to obtain any agreement, and the failure so far of the present Government to obtain agreement. This creates a much worse problem for our fishermen than there would be if a sane and sensible agreement had been obtained. As to the immediate problems of the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have so far provided twice as much aid to the industry as did the Labour Government.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it true that the Danish Government are asking for free fishing without quotas? How can that be a sensible policy? Since the Danish Presidency which begins next month will take us beyond the end of this year, will the Danes achieve their objective by refusing to come to an agreement in the next six months?
Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman says, the main prize of a common fisheries policy is a quota system which is strictly enforced. There would be no point in a common fisheries policy without that ingredient. Denmark is alone in the view that for other than two species no quotas should be applied. I am sure that that would suit the type of fishing in which Denmark has been involved for some time, but it cannot form the basis of a fishing policy.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Why has the right hon. Gentleman done worse for England than the Secretary of State seems to have done for Scotland? What concessions between six miles and 12 miles has the right hon. Gentleman given to the French? How does he intend to prevent the concessions from escalating into a massive increase in take from those waters?
Mr. Walker: No concessions have been agreed with anybody. There has been no agreement whatsoever on access proposals. So far in the negotiations we have obtained substantial improvements on the question of historic rights for many parts of the coastline that compare with anything in living memory. We have achieved a substantial improvement for our coastal fishermen as a whole. I hope that there will be further improvements. Many of our fishermen wish to continue to enjoy historic rights in other nations' coastal waters and we have negotiated for that.
Mr. Robert Hicks: On the specific question of access to the six-mile to 12-mile band, and in particular in relation to the French, what safeguards has my right hon. Friend obtained and what additional safeguards does he hope to achieve in respect of controlling the catch that the French may take if they are allowed to continue to fish within that band?
Mr. Walker: The Commission has accepted that on 1 January, or when agreement is reached—whichever is the earlier—the first ever enforcement provisions will come into force. One fishing organisation—that mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—queried control and said that there would not be adequate penalties. I was pleased to inform it that the
898
penalties already approved by the House of a fine of £50,000 maximum for any one offence with the confiscation of equipment would apply.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has not the right hon. Gentleman blackmailed those in the industry to agree to whatever proposals he can get so that they receive some subsidy from him to help them in the chaos that they are experiencing? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do for the deep water ports? Is he aware that the port of Hull, for example, had 103 vessels 10 years ago and now has only 21, half of which are not fishing? About 135,000 tonnes of fish were landed there 10 years ago and only just over 25,000 tonnes are landed today. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has done nothing for them, that there is no third party agreement and no compensation and that thousands of fishermen are unemployed?
Mr. Walker: It is untrue that I have at any stage tried to bargain or, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, blackmail those in the industry to accept subsidies in exchange for an agreement. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegation because it is totally without foundation. He knows more than anybody that the decline in the long-distance fleet took place primarily during the Labour Government's period in office.
Mr. David Myles: Now that negotiations have again broken down, will my right hon. Friend soon announce an aid programme for the industry, especially for the hard-pressed pelagic sector?
Mr. Walker: We are reviewing the figures on further aid submitted by the industry. The current position varies from one sector of the industry to another. Some sectors have had larger catches and better prices this year.
Mr. John Prescott: Does the Minister recognise that other countries have been subsidising their fleets to keep them at a certain level, whereas in the United Kingdom there has been a total collapse of ports such as Hull, which is facing a crisis and is in the hands of the banks? Does he recognise that the difference between his approach and that of the Danes is that he is prepared to accept the voice of the industry whereas in Denmark the parliamentary committee has to be satisfied before an agreement is accepted?
Mr. Walker: No one can accuse me of not coming to the House immediately following each meeting that I have had and submitting to the Scrutiny Committee every document involved. I shall not be accused of not doing that. The hon. Member must be pleased that the present Government have doubled the aid that the previous Government gave to the industry.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the industry needs an agreement in the near future? Will he repeat the pledge that he gave to the House earlier, that if the Danes continue to veto an agreement the Government will not allow fishing up to our beaches by the end of this year?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not satisfactory to argue that it is in our interests not to have an exclusive 12-mile limit so that we can fish within another State's 12-mile limit? Will he abandon the Government's decision not to

899
press ahead with the policy adopted by successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, that there should be an exclusive 12-mile limit with the phasing out of all historic rights?
Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman discovered when he was involved in these activities, the Labour Government got nowhere near to a negotiating position, or to an agreement satisfactory to our industry. Even now, with plenty of negotiations still to come, the access proposals for the British fishing industry are better now than at any time in living memory.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Have the new proposals from the Commission moved closer to or further from the Government's negotiating targets? If all that stands between the British fishing industry and a settlement is the Danish interest, will the Minister not hesitate to seek to persuade his colleagues to accept the precedent established at the agricultural price-fixing and proceed by majority voting?
Mr. Walker: I would not proceed on majority voting, believing as I do that it would be completely against Britain's interests. I would not argue for it when it suited me and argue against it when it did not.
I was asked whether the latest proposals were an improvement. The proposals were tabled last night and delivered after the Council meeting ended. I have not had time to discuss or study them in detail, but I understand from preliminary observations by officials that they show some further improvement in our quota arrangements.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members on the Government Benches and the five on the Opposition Benches who have tried to catch my eye—if they are brief.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend has said that the industry's agreement is required before he can present a case to the House. Does he mean all major sections of the industry and not just a so-called majority consensus? Would it not help the House in considering the various proposals if he were prepared to say what legal powers Britain has to exclude French and other EEC vessels from fishing up to our beaches after 31 December if there is no revised common fisheries policy?
Mr. Walker: We have expressed our view and interpretation of the treaty and the statements in it. My hon. Friend has asked me what in my interpretation constitutes the fishing industry. So far, in every detail that I have negotiated, I have carried the whole fishing industry with me. In the detailed and prolonged talks that I had with those in the industry in the past two days they were still in agreement with every detail of my negotiating position.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the widely published reports that he was prepared to accept a settlement that fell far short of the requirements of the House and the commitments of the Conservative Party manifesto and which has already been denounced by a large sector of the industry, specifically by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and that he was prevented from accepting that sell-out by the Danes doing what he should have been doing and asking for more?
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman wants the industry to give its unpressured and considered consent to
900
the sell-out, why does he not announce the vital aid that it needs to keep going? If withholding that announcement is not blackmail, what is?
Mr. Walker: It is unacceptable for the hon. Gentleman to talk about withholding aid when this Government's record on aid to the industry is so much better than that of any previous Government. The NFFO has had two lots of talks with me in the past 12 days and at neither was it critical of the negotiating position that I was taking.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend treat the Opposition's offer of support in this matter as the dangerous booby-trapped device that it is? Will he reflect on the implications of the remarks attributed to him in The Daily Telegraph today that the one country that did not respect quotas was popular with its fishermen? This country has a greater interest than any other in achieving an agreed policy.
Mr. Walker: Every fishing organisation and every fisherman I have spoken to recognises that to obtain a secure future we need proper quota and enforcement arrangements in Community waters.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is there not a stark contrast between the way in which the Government moved swiftly to protect the interests of the Falkland Islanders by establishing a 200-mile exclusive zone there and the way in which they are refusing to protect the interests of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members?
Mr. Walker: I am sure that we would be willing to accept all the historic fishing rights of the Falklands to operate in our 12-mile limit.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the situation? He has rightly asserted the importance of maintaining the agreement of the industry, and claims that he has that agreement, but the NFFO says that the proposals do not constitute the basis of an acceptable and honourable settlement. Which is correct?
Mr. Walker: The proposals that the federation was referring to were those of the Commission. I am in complete agreement with the industry about changes that we require on access, quotas and other details. The proposals that the NFFO was referring to were not proposals that I had made to the industry, but the current proposals of the Commission. My hon. Friend can check with the leaders of the NFFO. I have had discussion after discussion with them, and they do not disagree with my negotiating position.
Mr. Thomas Torney: In view of the many occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman has had to come to the House and apologise for the continual procrastination of the Common Market on fishing matters, will he take unilateral action—we have waited long enough for the Common Market—and give aid to save what is left of our industry?
Mr. Walker: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that I remember that he made similar comments from his anti-Community posture every time that we had disputes over lamb. I hope that I shall have the same success on fishing that I had on lamb.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I help my right hon. Friend? Is it not the case that the British

901
fishing industry has declined recently compared with the industries of some of our European partners? Would not an objective test of my right hon. Friend's success be whether that trend is reversed, particularly as we apparently own more than half the fish.
Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend studies the matter, he will see that the decline of the British industry has been closely connected with the loss of Icelandic waters. Some improvements have occurred in the British fishing industry in coastal waters.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's claim about consultation with the industry and taking it with him, but is he not being a little arrogant and over-optimistic in giving almost a right of veto to an industry which is divided in its interests and, like farmers, is notoriously reluctant to accept that any Government can give it what it wants?
Mr. Walker: I had only two choices—to work closely with the industry, or not to do so. I chose to work closely with the industry.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out a comparative study of the changes in conditions and quality of fish stock in Icelandic and British waters over the past 10 years? If he did so, would he expect to conclude that the protestations of my right hon. and hon. Friends from fishing ports are entirely justified?
On a wider note, will the right hon. Gentleman estimate whether the share of the Commission budget devoted to the structure and subsidy of agriculture will be greater next year than it was last year?
Mr. Walker: That question is not related to my statement. One of the rewards of getting a CFP is that there would then be European investment in the structure of the fishing industry.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Why is it that on today's statement and the statement of a week or two ago the Minister has been unwilling to give us information about exactly what the Commission proposes on exclusive limits and access? Will he tell us exactly what the Commission proposes and exactly what he was apparently willing to accept on exclusive limits and access? Is it not a fact that he has been frightened to tell the House those details because he knows that the House would recognise them for what they are—a sell-out?
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that all the documents have been made available to the House. They were passed to the Scrutiny Committee, which called for a debate on them, and I am certain that we shall have a debate on them. I have not agreed to any proposals. The right hon. Gentleman has got it totally wrong. The House has the information, and I have not agreed to anything.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a supplementary answer given to me yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. I asked:
"Is the hon. Gentleman … aware that there are disturbing rumours that in future RAF Kemble is to be used as a maintenance depot for cruise weapons and/or the storage of chemical weapons? Will he categorically deny these rumours?"
In answer to that part of my question the hon. Gentleman said:
"In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States Air Force is examining the available facilities and, unfortunately, has not yet been able to divulge anything to me about its intentions."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 741.]
Later yesterday afternoon, in reply to a question from Harlech TV, the USAF public relations officer said that if the USAF used Kemble it would do so for general supplies:
"some of which might be used in the cruise system".
It is incredible that a Minister of the Crown, in answer to a properly tabled question, was unable or unwilling to give information which the USAF was good enough to give to the media later the same day. I believe that that was either an attempt to mislead the House or a gross contempt of the House, bearing in mind—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can already answer the hon. Gentleman. I have been patient in allowing him to make his point, but it is not a point of order for me. The answer that a Minister gives to a question is a matter for him. It is not my responsibility and it is not a point of order on which I can rule. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman and have allowed him leeway to which he was not really entitled. If he has a valid point of order, I will listen to it.
Mr. Stoddart: May I complete my point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, I shall be glad to hear it. It is my business to rule on a genuine point of order.
Mr. Stoddart: When a Minister has clearly misled the House, Mr. Speaker I believe it is your practice to give him the opportunity to make a personal statement. I should like your advice about how, if the Minister refuses to make a personal statement, I can ask a question that is in order which will enable—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say that the Minister has misled the House. It is the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it might not be the Minister's. I am not involved in this.

Victims of Violent Crimes
4 pm
Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the help given to victims of violent crime.
All hon. Members, especially those representing urban areas, will be aware of the appalling growth of violent crime in our towns and cities. Rarely does a weekend go by in my constituency without disturbing news of someone being mugged or someone's home being broken into, lives shattered and people left helpless after gangs of marauding youngsters have ransacked homes for little or no financial gain. On Merseyside a home is broken into every 20 minutes. One crime is committed every four minutes. Yet for all the evidence of the scale of the problem, precious little has been done to improve the help that is given to the victim.
My Bill sets out to make a small contribution in three areas and to redress the imbalance between the rights of the offender and the rights of their victim.
First, the Bill would establish statutory victim support schemes in every local authority. It would be their job to complement the work already being done by voluntary organisations which, with the best will in the world, are unable to provide comprehensive cover for the entire country. On Merseyside, volunteers such as Mrs. Joan Jonker of the local Victims of Violence organisation, do an excellent job, but they are the first to point out the inadequacy of simply relying on volunteers.
Under the terms of the Bill, once the police have been notified of an offence, they would immediately get in touch with the victim support unit, which in turn would arrange a visit to the victim. No one should underestimate the value of help, comfort, advice and administrative assistance at a moment of great personal desolation. Yet, at present, apart from the police taking details of the crime, a victim is often left in isolation and fear, haunted by the prospect of their assailant returning. A much more practical and sensitive response is required.
The support unit would assess the needs of the victim and then co-ordinate the response—help perhaps from the DHSS in replacing stolen electricity or gas money or the rent money; perhaps a visit from the doctor if that is needed or a visit from meals on wheels or the home help service, provided through the social services department. The installation of a security system might be needed—something as simple as a lock on the door or a burglar alarm—or help in obtaining sheltered accommodation through the local housing department.
That type of immediate aid, comfort, support and help requires more than voluntary efforts could possibly provide, operating as they do without any major financial backing. The pitiful Government subsidy last year to the National Association of Victim Support Schemes was the princely sum of £23,000, which was divided between the national headquarters and 60 local schemes—about £380 per scheme. There is the strongest possible case to improve that provision. I have tried to impress that view on the Home Secretary and the Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security when I and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), have been to see those Ministers about the matter.
904
It is worth mentioning that the last available figures in the House of Commons Library showed that in 1981 349,000 homes were broken into and approximately 15,000 muggings took place. It was further estimated by Roger Berthoud, writing in The Times, that for every pound that is spent on offenders about 1p is spent on victims—a ratio of 100:1. That is a grotesque position. A great deal of sentiment is expressed about victims, but there is no point in being long on sentiment while short on cash. Parliament must make better provision to aid voluntary groups when they exist, and to make statutory provision where they do not.
By way of example of what can be done I should like to pay tribute to Liverpool city council which, following representations from me, has initiated a pilot scheme to provide intruder alarms in the homes of 300 elderly people. However, that is insufficient and the scheme needs to be extended, particularly to all partnership areas. The Secretary of State for the Environment should sponsor more such initiatives through the urban aid programme.
How we treat the vulnerable and the weakest members of our community is a touchstone of a civilised society. If more work was done to prevent crime—for example, by preventing easy access into elderly people's homes—much unnecessary cost in financial as well as human terms might be avoided.
I move now to the second area covered by my Bill. There needs to be a reform of the present terms of reference, scope and practice of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The reforms would include the disclosure of all relevant information by the CICB to victims and their legal advisers that would be helpful or necessary to the victim's application for compensation. There should also be a right of appeal from decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and local boards should be established for the sake of accessibility and to improve the promptness of investigation and decision. It cannot, be right that two Merseyside mothers whom I met recently had to wait 18 months for their claim to be settled, following the tragic murder of their two sons. It is also well worth remembering that they told the hon. Member for West Derby and me that they had never had, in the time since the tragic events occurred, a visit from a local authority welfare worker or social worker. One of the families was forced to go to a finance company to get a loan to pay for the funeral of the son. That local authority, which was not the Liverpool city council but another Merseyside council, has a duty to implement the type of statutory scheme that I outlined earlier. Along with the reforms that I advocate in the criminal injuries procedure, that would mean that a more compassionate response would be forthcoming.
The Government should also examine the ludicrous situation whereby a victim is unable to claim legal aid when pleading his case before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There is more than a touch of Gilbertian irony in the present administration of the legal aid system, whereby the offender but not the victim can usually easily claim legal aid. Similarly, the victim should have complete access to information about the injuries he sustained and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. A duty should be placed upon the courts to determine and place on record the victim's injuries.
My third point deals with the relationship of the victim to the legal process. My Bill would enable the victim to

905
appeal against a sentence imposed on an offender which in the view of the victim or his relatives bears no relation to the scale of the injuries sustained. Just as the offender is able to appeal against a sentence because he feels it is too harsh, so the victim should be able to appeal when he believes the sentence is unrealistic. This safeguard would in itself lead to a more rational system of sentencing. Along with many other hon. Members, I greatly regret that our prisons are full to overflowing with vagrants, alcoholics, fine defaulters and prostitutes. They are people who should be receiving help and support from society—not prison sentences. In the case of those who have inflicted suffering and injury on the weak, the elderly and the most vulnerable, society must act to protect them from the perpetrators of such callous, violent crimes.
At present, it would appear that there is no such person in law as the victim of a crime. A victim, in the eyes of the law, appears to be a person who may or may not be called upon to give evidence tending to convict or acquit the person alleged to have committed an offence. If the person is acquitted, the courts appear to have little further interest in the matter, even if the victim has been gravely injured. On the other hand, if the accused person is convicted, the courts may or may not make a compensation order on behalf of the victim. That cannot be done unless an application has been previously lodged. That really is too cavalier a way to treat those who have been on the receiving end of all that has occurred. My Bill sets out to redress the imbalance between the victim and the offender.
In England and Wales there are nearly two and a half times as many cases of wounding every year as there were 10 years ago. Robberies involving violence have doubled in the same period. In London, where nearly one-quarter
906
of all English crimes take place, wounding has increased by 50 per cent. between 1975 and today. Such offences are not confined to London. In Nelson, Lancashire, an 81-year-old woman was killed for the £5 that she had in her home. In Manchester a church service has been switched from the evening to the afternoon because of attacks on members of the congregation.
I end where I began, in Liverpool, with the stories of two constituents. One lady aged 80 years was attacked in her flat and raped. Her screams for help were ignored. The rape took place at 5 o'clock in the morning. By the time a neighbour realised that she was screaming the assailant had escaped. The 80-year-old lady was left physically injured and severely shocked.
The other case concerns a council tenant living on the Chatsworth Street estate in the Edge Hill constituency. He is a man without legs and, therefore, confined to a wheelchair. He said of the break-in of his home:
"Someone came in the bedroom window and hit me with a cobblestone. He hit me five times. He took 40 cigarettes and the gold watch that was given to me when my legs were taken off."
These are only two of many cases but the plight of the victims demonstrates more vividly than any speech why the House should pass the Bill and do more to help those who are victims of our violent and sometimes sick society.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. William Pitt, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Victims of Violent Crimes
  VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES
  Mr. David Alton accordingly presented a Bill to improve the help given to victims of violent crime: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 July and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Local Government Finance (No. 2) [Money] (No. 2)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
4.12 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish supplementary rates and supplementary precepts; to require rates and precepts to be made or issued for complete financial years; to provide for the making of substituted rates and the issue of substituted precepts; to regulate proceedings for challenging the validity of rates and precepts; to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of local authorities and with respect to relief from rates in enterprise zones; to amend the provision relating to block grant and to make new provisions for auditing the accounts of local authorities and other public bodies, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of grants to rating authorities under paragraph 29 of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment.
Mr. King: The resolution has been tabled to cover one small amendment which was agreed to in another place to meet representations from local authorities and industry. It is a small, technical point on rate relief for enterprise zones. There was no power to give rate relief for properties straddling an enterprise zone boundary. The resolution provides power for relief to be given for part of a property as well as for a whole property. Hon. Members will find that under the rules of the House the whole resolution has to be tabled. The only difference will be that further provision will be made for relief from rates in enterprise zones.
4.13 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Minister has a unique facility for claiming that something of considerable importance on which the Government have made serious mistakes is a minor technical matter. As the Government have had to introduce a second money resolution, we expected the Secretary of State to be present. As we shall be discussing the most contentious of the Lords amendments next Wednesday, we shall expect the presence of the Secretary of State. Apart from moving the Bill's Second Reading, he has not participated in the Bill at any stage. I regard that as a serious discourtesy to the House. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a highly controversial Bill. He read the speech that was provided for him by the Department on Second Reading and then disappeared, as usual, leaving the Minister with the shovel to follow the Lord Mayor's procession.
This is not a correction of a minor technicality because it is yet another example—it may not be the last—of the complete disarray of legislation that has been introduced by the Department of the Environment. There are still anomalies in the Housing Act 1980 which to this day have not been put right by the Government. In many respects the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, with which we shall be proceeding after the money resolution has been passed, has been rewritten so often that its own mother would not recognise it.
908
Next week when we debate the remaining Lords amendments we shall come to the fourth version of clause 4, which has been doubled to be clause 8. It is worse than the version that left this place a few weeks ago. In addition to all the other errors, omissions and inadequacies of this singularly ill-fated proposed legislation, the Government have found that they must make a new long title. The Minister did not say that an amendment to the long title is necessary to accommodate the amendment and the second money resolution.
The amendments to which we shall turn are not really amendments to the Bill. They are amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, a measure with its own disreputable and scarred history. It was introduced in the House of Lords. It was withdrawn and reintroduced in this place in a different and partly emasculated form. In Committee large parts of it were junked like so much debris. Two years after the enactment of the Bill the Government return with some parts that they omitted by mistake.
In moving the resolution the Minister said, as though it were nothing to do with him or the Government—he seemed to suggest that it was an act of God—that there is no power in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act to give rate relief to concerns that straddle enterprise zones and non-enterprise zones. There is no power because the Government forgot to provide that power when they were drafting the Bill. That shambles of a Bill did not include that power because the Government had not thought of it. The Government made up that Bill, as they did the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, as they went along. What is more, they discovered their error late in the day.
The House spent six months on the Local Government Finance (No. 1) and (No. 2) Bills. The original measure was introduced in November. It was withdrawn and reintroduced in December. It spent a properly long time in Committee and it was considered on Report. During that period the Government failed to discover that there was no power to give rate relief for concerns straddling enterprise zones and non-enterprise zones. If the Government had taken slightly longer to discover the omission, they would not have been able to amend the Bill.
The Bill left this place without amendments of the sort that the Government now wish to make, and if it had returned from another place unamended it would not have been possible to amend it here. In that event, the Government would have had to introduce separate legislation. The Government would have had to have a Local Government (No. 3), (No. 11) or even (No. 19) Bill. We lose track of the numbers of the Bills. The only reason they have been able to rectify the mistake is that there are no rules of order in the House of Lords and that it is open to the Government to move amendments in the House of Lords outside the scope of the money resolution. But for that they would not have been able to deal with the matter.
When the money resolution is carried, we shall debate the substance of the amendments. Some of my hon. Friends will make necessary points about them. Let us be absolutely clear, so that we can see the mess that the Government have got themselves into and the way in which they have abused the House of Commons, that those amendments would not be debatable without the resolution.
The House will recall what happened when, under the Labour Government, the Shipbuilding (Redundancy

909
Payments) Bill went through Parliament. The House of Lords, against the wishes of that Government, inserted into the Bill certain amendments that were outside the scope of the Commons money resolution. When the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House Mr. Speaker, before the Commons could discuss the amendments in any way, said that the amendments were an abuse of privilege and directed the House without debate to reject those Lords Amendments.
Without the money resolution, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker would have been obliged to follow that precedent and direct the House of Commons to reject without debate these Government amendments. That is a token of the complete shambles into which the Government have got themselves on those matters. That is the knife edge on which the Government have been working. They deserve the utmost censure for their incompetence. We shall want the Secretary of State to be here next week so that he can face the Opposition instead of always leaving the dirty work to another Minister.
4.22 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). The Minister did not tell the Committee that it was his intention to remedy the omission that had been made. By using the procedure of laying a money resolution that puts in order amendments coming from another place that would otherwise have been out of order is contempt of the House and should be condemned by right hon. and hon. Members.
In the House we have few enough rights when we try to examine and control the Executive. The Government's move in this tawdry money resolution invites the condemnation of both sides of the House. It shows their contempt for the House when they are trying to sort out the daft concept of enterprise zones.
I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we debate amendments Nos. 6 and 31. It is a point of principle that no Government, if they have the interests of the House at heart, should resort to such subterfuge to clear up what was obviously a mistake.
910
Had the Minister made it clear to the Committee that the Government had made yet another mistake in the Bill, which is full of mistakes, I have no doubt that we would have understood their point, but to act in this way is contempt of the House and should be condemned as such.
Mr. King: The House has enjoyed the two efforts to try to build a small molehill into a big mountain. There is no mistake in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) had listened to his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), he would know that there was an omission in the 1980 Act. That point should have been covered at the time, but was not observed. I accept responsibility. I took the Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman need take no responsibility because he was not on the Committee as he was otherwise engaged.
The House scrutinised the Bill. We all failed to spot the mistake. That point could have been picked up in Committee, but it was not. We shall debate the substance of the matter when we come to the amendments. I shall not bore the House with reciting the precedents and the number of times that this action has been taken by Governments. The amendment is sensible and minor. To correct the mistake, a small amendment to the money resolution was needed. I thought that it was the sensible and common sense thing to do. I make no apologies. On balance, I believe that it was the right thing to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to abolish supplementary rates and supplementary precepts; to require rates and precepts to be made or issued for complete financial years; to provide for the making of substituted rates and the issue of substituted precepts; to regulate proceedings for challenging the validity of rates and precepts; to make further provision with respect to the borrowing powers of local authorities and with respect to relief from rates in enterprise zones; to amend the provision relating to block grant and to make new provisions for auditing the accounts of local authorities and other public bodies, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of grants to rating authorities under paragraph 29 of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance (No 2) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 5, 6, 31, 13, 32, 14, 25, 27, 29, 15 to 17, 20, 21, 24, 1 to 4, 7, 26, 28, 30, 8, 9, 11,10,12,18, 19, 22 and 23.—[Mr. King.]

  Local Government Finance (No 2) Bill
    Clause 3

      BORROWING POWERS
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 29, leave out from "(2A)" to end of line 33 and insert
      "The reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to money borrowed by a local authority includes a reference to the interest for the time being payable in respect of that money."
      4.25 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The House will recall that the purpose of what was clause 3(1), when we last considered it, is to prevent any doubt arising about the creditworthiness of English and Welsh authorities once they no longer have unlimited ability to raise revenue at any time of the year. As originally drafted, the clause adopted the Scottish model of making the interest payable on a local authority's borrowing a first charge on its revenues. That was done by adding to schedule 13(11) of the Local Government Act 1972, in which money borrowed is already secured as a charge on the authority's revenues. However, the majority of prospectuses issued assume that money borrowed under the 1972 Act carries interest as well as principal and that that they are secured as equal charges on an authority's revenues.
      Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that the phrase "money borrowed" includes interest. That confirms what many people had already thought to be the position and avoids any problem of discrepancy between existing and future prospectuses. The amendment is an acceptable and welcome clarification for the lending institutions. Like the original provision, it meets any anxieties about the future creditworthiness of local authorities.
      Mr. Harry Cowans: We debated this matter at length in Committee. It is a tragedy that the debate in the other place was all about interest or capital as a first demand on local authorities.
      Before the Bill, the first demand on a local authority was with those who were employed by it. In the event of a local authority going bankrupt, which was unthinkable until the Bill was introduced, the first charge on a local authority was in respect of those who served it, its employees. I thought that in the other place the substance of the Committee debate would have been picked up.
      There was great anxiety that for the first time in local government no thought is to be given to the employees. Provision is made for employees elsewhere. For instance, under companies Act legislation, when the receiver comes in, the first charge on the company is the employee. The debate in the other place concerned only whether capital
      912
      or interest should be the first priority for the local authority. The Bill will force local authorities to borrow money from the City at extraordinary rates of interest. It gives no thought to the employees.
      4.30 pm
      The Bill should be entitled "The Local Government Finance (No. 2)"—or any number up to eight—"Afterthought Bill". The Government are legislating by afterthought. In what he said about the title my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) might have suggested that the word "afterthought" should be included. The Lords amendment is yet another afterthought. It is disgraceful. It takes no account of the situation that existed before the Bill was introduced. Public sector employees were protected, as private sector employees are. The amendment deals only with money and not with people.
      I believed that we were elected to this House to protect people's interests, but, having read the amendment, it would appear that I am wrong and that we were sent here to protect capital to the detriment of local government employees. Will the Minister deal with that? The issue was neglected in Committee and again in the other place. We need a concrete answer so that the people who are fortunate—unfortunate, perhaps after the Bill is enacted—enough to be employed in local government know that they have the same protection as they had before the Bill was introduced.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) makes, but he would be the first to acknowledge that the amendment and the Government's general proposals in the Bill to add to local authorities' credit-worthiness are very much in the interests of their employees. It is in their interests that their employers' credit rating should be beyond doubt.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause C

      RATE RELIEF IN ENTERPRISE ZONES
      Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 3, insert the following new clause:
      "C.—(1) At the end of paragraph 27(1) of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (exemption from rates of certain hereditaments situated in areas designated as enterprise zones) there shall be added the words "or in respect of any part of an exempt hereditament as regards any period during which the area in which that part is situated is so designated."
      (2) In paragraph 28 of the said Schedule 32 (mixed hereditaments)—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (2) (mixed hereditament to be rated as a dwelling of the appropriate rateable value), for the word "dwelling" there shall be substituted the word "dwelling-house"; and

      (b) for sub-paragraph (3)(b) (extension of power to make regulations about appeals) there shall be substituted—

      "(b) the reference to the occupier or person treated as occupier of the hereditament being dissatisfied by the view taken by the rating authority included a reference to the occupier, the person aforesaid or the rating authority being dissatisfied by the view taken by the valuation officer; and".
      (3) After the said paragraph 28 there shall be inserted—
      "Hereditaments partially within enterprise zones
      28A.—(1) As regards any period during which part only of an exempt hereditament (within the meaning of paragraph 27 above) is situated in an area designated as an enterprise

      913
      zone, the valuation officer shall determine the portion of the rateable value of the hereditament attributable to the part of the hereditament situated outside the enterprise zone.
      (2) Where a determination in respect of a hereditament has been made under sub-paragraph (1) above, the amount of any rates payable in respect of the hereditament shall (subject to sub-paragraph (3)(b) below) be the amount which would be payable in respect of it if its rateable value were equal to the portion of the rateable value which was determined under sub-paragraph (1) above.
      (3) Where the hereditament in respect of which a determination has been so made is a mixed hereditament—

      (a) the valuation officer shall also determine the portion of the rateable value of the hereditament attributable to any part of it which is used for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings and is situated within the enterprise zone; and

      (b) if such a determination is made, the amount of any rates payable in respect of the hereditament shall be the aggregate of the following amounts, namely—

      (i) the amount payable under sub-paragraph (2) above, and

      (ii) the amount which would be payable in respect of it if it were a dwelling-house of a rateable value equal to the portion of the rateable value determined under paragraph (a) above.

      (4) Section 48(6) of the 1967 Act shall, with modifications corresponding to those contained in paragraph 28(3) above, apply also in relation to questions as to the portions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(a) above.""
      The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Amendment No. 6 involves privilege.
      With this we may take Lords amendment No. 31.
      Mr. King: This is the item that we were discussing under the money resolution to deal with the anomaly about exemption from rates for certain hereditaments that straddle enterprise zone boundaries. It is a simple and easily comprehended point.
      Mr. Cowans: The Minister says that the point is simple. It is so simple that it did not arise in our Committee proceedings.
      Let us examine this second afterthought—we may have many more. Setting up the enterprise zones has created many anomalies. The amendment will create yet another. Parts of a site or factory within an enterprise zone will qualify for a drastic reduction in rates. That will create serious difficulties. I am speaking for myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends may not agree, but I believe that it is nonsense to give only part of a site the advantage. The whole site should be included.
      There are many examples of sites straddling enterprise zone boundaries in my constituency and a number in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).
      Mr. King: Team Valley.
      Mr. Cowans: Team Valley, part of Blaydon, down to the Tyne and nearly as far as Walker and all the shipyards.
      A problem arises if part of a site for a factory is on derelict land which comes just inside the enterprise zone. With my long experience of local government, I appreciate that difficulties are always created when lines are drawn on a map, but they can be got over. The firm may wish
      914
      to develop the whole site. The land that comes inside the enterprise zone may not be developable, but it will get rate relief. If the whole site were included, it might encourage the firm to go ahead and thus create extra jobs, which is the aim of enterprise zones.
      The Minister will be creating more anomalies than already exist with enterprise zones. Why not go the whole way?
      Mr. John McWilliam: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). We share representation of the largest chunk of the biggest enterprise zone.
      Let me give examples of the anomalies that occur. I well recall when the boundaries of the enterprise zone were set. I pointed out that they stopped at the wall of the existing building of T. I. Churchill Ltd. in Blaydon. When I protested about it, I received a letter from the Minister concerned, Lord Bellwin, saying that T. I. Churchill Ltd had the land beyond the factory within the enterprise zone and could develop it for the furtherance of its business. That letter did not go down at all well, because at that time T. I. Churchill Ltd was on a two-day week. In those circumstances, how on earth could it develop the land for the furtherance of its business?
      I could enumerate other problems. For example, GKN Galloway is not in the enterprise zone, although it is further in towards the zone than George Johnstone and Company. Both firms are steel stockholders, with plants of identical size, and they compete for the same customers. They are 500 yards apart, but one is in and the other is out.
      The problems with the enterprise zones are appalling and ought to be sorted out. I have a letter from Lord Bellwin's office in the Department of the Environment, signed by his private secretary. It says that
      "consultants commissioned by the Department to monitor the progress of the EZ experiment … will be conducting further interviews with a sample of firms in these areas and … there may well be a limited number of firms in your constituency … The results of the research undertaken last year have recently been published in the Year One Report of the Enterprise Zone Monitoring Study, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library".
      A copy is not available in the House of Commons Library. It is not in the catalogue of the House of Commons Library.
      I wrote to the Vote Office saying that I required a copy for my constituency interest, and I received a note eventually from the Stationery Office which said:
      "Dear Mr. McWilliam,
      On your demand dated 16 June you have asked for a copy of Year One Report of the Enterprise Zone Monitoring Study. This book is not available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office but is published by Roger Tym and Partners, price £31.57, and is available from 26 Craven Street".
      I do not have £31.57 to spare to pay for a study undertaken by the Government. Copies of it should be available for hon. Members so that they can make up their minds on the success or otherwise of the policy. I am fairly certain that most other hon. Members—particularly those on the Opposition Benches—do not have £31.57 to spare to pay for a copy of the study. Yet it is impossible to evaluate the Lords amendment or the subject under consideration unless one has taken the trouble to read the study.
      I do not wish to mislead the House, so it is right that I should say that I have tracked down a copy of the report. There is one in the economic research section of the

      915
      Library. A copy was bought by it, but it is not available to hon. Members on the same basis as other publications. I could go to that section of the Library and read the report. Unfortunately, I discovered that fact only five minutes before the debate. Therefore, the fact that there is a copy of the report in a section of the Library does not seem to be of great relevance or benefit to hon. Members.
      I protest most strongly that the Minister's own Department is misleading hon. Members in saying that information is available when it is not. I also protest because we are having to consider amendments to the Bill, inviting us to do things which may or may not be sensible, when we have no basis on which to judge them. I ask the Minister to go back to his Department and make inquiries about how in future relevant information may be made available to hon. Members. I do not approve of privatisation which deprives hon. Members of the necessary information on which to base the crucial decisions which must be made now and in the future about enterprise zones.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Allan Roberts: The amendment demonstrates not only that in the past the Government have made a mess of their legislation and have not anticipated problems that might arise, but the inadequate nature of enterprise zones. If the amendment is an attempt to rectify the problems that exist on the boundaries of enterprise zones, it will not succeed.
      It enables firms, factories and concerns that straddle the boundary of an enterprise zone to receive, at least to some extent, the benefits of the enterprise zone that are now received by factories, concerns or firms that are inside the enterprise zone. That will not solve the problems that exist for firms that fall inside and outside enterprise zones. It will not rectify the anomalies that exist in the areas where enterprise zones have been established, as I hope to illustrate.
      There are two enterprise zones of which I have some knowledge—those in Manchester and Liverpool. When the enterprise zone concept was being proposed and the zones were established, Labour Members told the Government that the zones would not work and would create more problems than they would solve. That was said not only by Labour Members and by members of the Labour Party. Amazingly, most entrepreneurs, business men and industrialists in areas where the zones were to be established also made the point very strongly to the Government.
      I have a letter that was sent to me on 29 June 1981 by a body calling itself the Enterprise Zone Action Group. It is based in Manchester and consists of business men, industrialists and people who own enterprises in warehousing, retailing and wholesaling. They wrote to me objecting to the concept of the enterprise zones.
      The first of the "principal objections" outlined in the letter was "unfair competition". The letter says that
      "In the Service sector, rates amount to a substantial proportion of total costs; the ten years rates 'holiday' therefore enables the beneficiary to significantly undercut the charges of established businesses."
      The second "principal objection" put forward by the group related to property values, and the letter says that
      "There is already clear evidence that the capital values of properties outside the Zone have been dramatically reduced as a direct consequence of the proposed Enterprise Zone."
      916
      The letter then deals with the crux of the matter—employment prospects. It questions whether enterprise zones—spending initially £1·4 billion—would do anything for employment prospects in the areas where they are to be situated. The letter says that
      "Existing firms are closing their operation in one location and moving into the Enterprise Zone, throwing people out of work in areas of already high unemployment."
      That is interesting, because many firms have moved only a few hundred yards or a mile within the same area. The amendment would clear up only a small part of the boundary problem. The letter goes on to say that
      "Trafford Park already has an abundant supply of Service industries; newcomers can only trade at the expense of existing businesses. In consequence, we do not believe that Enterprise Zones are any answer to the problem of unemployment and suggest that the concept be abandoned."
      That is what the group said on 29 June 1981.
      The Manchester enterprise zone has been in existence for a considerable time. I spoke to people in the area, asking them what progress has been made with the enterprise zone and what exactly is happening in Manchester. The people there tell me that the zone is beginning to attract companies, but that the vast majority are local moves, due to boundary problems. No new employment seems to be being created. Most of the companies moving in are warehouses or wholesalers, not manufacturing industries.
      I spoke to the city estates officer and the director of industrial development in the city of Manchester. They say that they have attended recent meetings where leases from the council for advance factories and other premises outside the zone are being surrendered by firms so that they can move into the zone. What is happening is a redistribution of employment, not a creation of employment, and the Government are subsidising that redistribution.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Surely it is not redistribution of employment, but redistribution of lack of employment. Is that not particularly insulting, in view of the Government's disgraceful decision this week not to allow Manchester to continue with its intermediate area status, which has clearly been a party political decision?
      Mr. Roberts: I entirely agree wih my right hon. Friend, who has a greater vested interest in Manchester than I. My concern for the people there stems from the fact that I was born and bred there, and I hate to see my fellow Mancunians unemployed and suffering as a result of this Government's policies.
      Let us consider what the Government have done to justify their enterprise zone policy. They have set up a national study of enterprise zones, and commissioned Roger Tym and Partners, consultants, but they have made sure that the efforts of those consultants will produce a self-fulfilling prophesy by giving them narrow terms of reference. The consultants can judge only what happens inside the enterprise zone, how many jobs come there, and how many are created there. They have not been given terms of reference whereby they could consider the effect of the enterprise zone on the areas in which it is situated. They will not be in a position to produce a report which will prove—if they could—that no new jobs are being generated, or that the number of jobs in general has not been increased by the enterprise zones.

      917
      Let us take another enterprise zone, in which I am directly concerned as a Merseyside Member, and that is the enterprise zone in Liverpool, which was established at Speke and which probably covers the largest area of land of any of the enterprise zones. Again, it was not only I and other Merseyside Members who told the Government that it would not work, that it was a peripheral palliative, and that it would not create jobs.
      Surprisingly, business men and industrialists in Merseyside were also opposed to the Government's proposals. I received a letter at the time when the enterprise zones were being established from McGregor Cory Warehousing, which has an industrial complex on Dunnings Bridge Road in Bootle in my constituency. The letter was written by a Mr. Singleton, the Liverpool area manager, and it said:
      "The Public Warehousing Industry is under a serious threat by reason of its inclusion in the Enterprise Zone concept which, amongst other attractions, allows ten years rates free tenure of property. This leaves established businesses outside the Zones at a serious disadvantage.
      Local Authority Rates are increasing well beyond general inflation levels … Public Warehouses are affected by the Enterprise Zones legislation more than most other industries because:—Rates account for some 23 per cent. of total costs or just under £5,000 per employee.
      Detailed representations have been made to the Minister who has simply brushed aside our arguments despite our having proved quite conclusively that his Officials made serious errors of judgement and fact when they looked into the costs of Public Warehousing.
      We do not believe"—
      this is what the amendment is about—
      "that arbitrary lines drawn on maps by Officials in any Government or Public Department should determine the success or failure of an established business. We believe in fair competition"—
      the Labour Party believes that; apparently, the Conservative Party does not—
      "—we thought that a Government which introduced the Competition Act did also, but we have a Minister who believes we should 'wait and see' what the effect will be 'after' the Zones have been started".
      Let us look at the Liverpool enterprise zone. I spoke to the Merseyside county council, the Liverpool district council, and others involved in the Merseyside Speke enterprise zone. I was told that, in general terms, the enterprise zone seems to have had no impact on Liverpool. At a meeting of the AMA on 2 April, the Liverpool city council wrote a report which said:
      "There have been no lettings to report".
      To give the Minister his due, the zone is a strange area. It should never have been declared in Speke. It is in the wrong place, because it is away from the problems of the inner city and the docklands. It is out near the airport. If it works at all, it will detract considerably from the work that is being done in partnership schemes and by the Merseyside development corporation.
      As well as being in the wrong area, the make-up of the enterprise zone is strange. It consists of three main parcels of land in three different ownerships. First, there are the closed British Leyland factories—which, if the Government's policies had been different, might not have closed in the first place. Secondly, there are the closed Dunlop factories—which Dunlop, as a multinational company, took away so as to manufacture tyres in Europe as a result of the Common Market's proposals for free movement of capital. Thirdly, there is the airport land.
      918
      There is also the English Industrial Estates Corporation which was there before the enterprise zone was declared and is still there. It builds advance factories and tries to let them. Some of the advance factories have been let—some of them were let before the enterprise zone was declared—but many of them are still empty and unlet. Since the declaration of the enterprise zone, there has been a deafening silence. There have been a few rumours. There has been a rumour of a bid for the British Leyland plant, but that is merely a rumour. I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny it. Does he know what is happening to that plant? Part of the site of the Dunlop factory has been cleared, and other parts have been made available for the storage of containers—that is hardly likely to produce many jobs—used on the docks.
      Mr. Cowans: My constituency suffers the same problems. What has exercised my mind, and will no doubt exercise that of my hon. Friend, is that outside an enterprise zone even empty buildings are rated, but, as I understand the arrangement, within an enterprise zone a saving in rates can be made by emptying the building and doing away with the jobs. Is that not counterproductive, or is it one way in which the Government help unemployment by increasing unemployment?
      Mr. Roberts: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. Although I have evidence of much inactivity in the Speke enterprise zone, I have no evidence of factories being emptied to avoid payment of rates because they are exempt from the empty property levy. That is something that I should investigate.
      Some activities in the Speke enterprise zone do not need a planning application to the local planning authority, but some do. There has been only one planning applicaton to the local planning authority, and that was for shops on the frontage of the British Leyland plant.
      The success of the Liverpool enterprise zone can be judged by the fact that a Mr. Jackson was appointed as the man in charge of the enterprise zone. I believe that he came from Littlewoods. He was straight out of the Heseltine task force, a Whiz kid, appointed to run the enterprise zone. My information is that Mr. Jackson is thoroughly disillusioned and has given up his job, because he has seen that the project has had no impact. It has been an absolute shambles and a waste of time. At least we have some palliatives, which appear to be doing something, in the Government's other initiatives.
      The Government should withdraw the amendment and abandon the whole idea of enterprise zones before they waste more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. It was an exercise that did not provide jobs, and it detracts from the work that other agencies are trying to do in the areas where they are situated in trying to create jobs and improve the environment.
      5 pm
      Britain and Merseyside should be one vast enterprise zone. Enterprise zones would not be needed if we had the right economic and industrial policies. Merseyside does not need an enterprise zone out at Speke. It needs action in the dock and inner city areas. There is need for more money to be given to the urban development corporation which should have a bigger area, especially in my constituency of Bootle, to look after. We want development area grants for dock and dock related activities now denied because those areas are not involved

      919
      in manufacturing. There is also need for the Stanley district plan area of Sefton, which has the same problems as the inner cities, to be brought within the inner city area partnership.
      The whole attitude of Merseysiders to the enterprise zone, the garden festival and other palliatives of the Secretary of State that do not solve any problems is summarised in a poem sent to me by a constituent. My constituent writes:
      "'No crock of gold', the city's told,
      But plants and shrubs and trees;
      To help assuage the people's rage
      And social conflict ease.
      What shall we do with violets blue,
      My dearest Heseltine?
      Shall Merseyside regain her pride
      With creeping columbine?
      Love-in-a-mist from monetarist
      Shall not relieve our pain,
      Nor blaze of green espouse the scene
      Of all your party's shame.
      It's work we quest, not dogma dres't
      To ambush and waylay;
      With Antoinette—'twas cake they ate,
      With you, 'tis blossoms gay!"
      Mr. Ted Graham: The Minister has been left in no doubt that among Opposition Members there are many caustic critics of the concept of the enterprise zone. I believe that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has the scars, are the only Conservative Members present who served on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I understand that the hon. Member for Hornchurch intends later in our proceedings to seek success where he has so far failed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and myself also served on that Bill.
      As the Minister has pointed out, the issue before the House is not perhaps of massive importance, but the issue of enterprise zones is important. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity not only to answer some of the questions that have been asked but to expand upon the standing of enterprise zones in the armoury of weapons that the Government have fashioned to carry forward their brand of entrepreneurial philosophy.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was right to point out that this Government's local government and local government finance legislation has been one of the saddest and shabbiest attempts to change the face of local government since the war and probably over an even longer period. My right hon. Friend referred to the shambles of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) may have served on the Committee which considered that Bill.
      Mr. John Cartwright: No.
      Mr. Graham: It is significant that the concept of the enterprise zone reached the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill only at the thirty-ninth Committee sitting. It was not contained in the Bill as drafted. This was not one of those Bills that was added to, chopped about or mucked about in the other place. The enterprise zone, when it saw the light of day, appeared as amendment No. 831 but amounted, in fact, to a schedule of six pages that covered six pages of Hansard. It was a massive injection into the Bill.
      920
      The Opposition had already taken the view that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill was not merely one Bill but a number of Bills. There was sufficient material in the Bill relating to direct labour organisations to merit separate legislation. It also dealt with the whole concept of local government finance, particularly rates reform. That would also have merited a separate Bill. The Bill's provisions relating to planning legislation and the responsibilities to be allocated to districts and counties would also have merited separate legislation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had been in his place, he would have argued that the part of the Bill relating to urban development areas would have merited a separate measure. Another example was the section of the Bill that related to new towns.
      Miscellaneous aspects of the Bill related to caravans, derelict land, allotments, allowances and the publication of information. In all, there was sufficient in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill to merit six or seven separate Bills. This was the state into which the Government's legislation and thinking on local government had stumbled in 1979 and 1980.
      It was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who conceived the idea of the enterprise zone. The concept already existed in a number of countries. It is possible that the name of Professor Hall will be mentioned. The name was pleaded in aid by the Minister in Committee. There is, however, no doubt that the Government were seeking to find initiatives that might cost some money but also portray the Government as an enterprising, energising and galvanising Administration full of good intentions. Two years later, having heard the experiences related to the House by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), the Opposition are entitled to examine what the amendment that we are asked to approve means.
      There is no doubt that the enterprise zone concept was seen by some as providing opportunities to many people to build and to take on extra responsibilities. It emerges that activities have not moved from one part of the country to another but from one local area to another or even from one street to another. I hope that the Minister will respond sensibly to the difficulty revealed in the document to which reference has been made.
      I remind the Minister that we are discussing the first report of the enterprise zone monitoring study. My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and Blaydon rightly pointed out that if helpful experience is available they would like to be able to read it. I understand that copies are available but they cost more than £30. If the Minister wishes to educate hon. Members and the public, he should ensure that that document is available in the normal green form system. We should ensure that relevant experience is well known. If hon. Members are to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively with regard to enterprise zones, we must have the latest information.
      Will the Minister spend a little more time than his colleague when he was recently invited to answer questions about rent levels and their relationship to rates in enterprise zones? No doubt the Minister will tell us that people were induced to take their business, money and skill to enterprise zones because it would be cheaper to operate there because of allowances, relief, speed with regard to planning, a reduction in bureaucracy and, above

      921
      all, because they would not have to pay rates. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) asked
      "how many enterprise zones have been designated; how many are operative; and how many representations he has received in respect of all zones, whether designated or operational, for firms located just outside zone borders about the difference in rate burden borne by them and by firms within the zones."
      5.15 pm
      Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that the Minister has received representations, both from me on behalf of most firms that are just outside enterprise zones and directly from GKN Galloway, T.I. Churchill Ltd. and the Federation brewery whose products occasion some delight among hon. Members. I know also that he has received representations through party political affiliations. GKN used to make a large contribution to Conservative Party funds. It has stopped doing so and has made strong representations.
      Mr. Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister will not deny that he has received representations. It is a question of the weight that the Minister is prepared to attach to those representations and whether he is prepared to acknowledge the problem.
      In his reply on 11 June to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, the Minister of State said:
      "An exact figure for the number of representations about the rates exemption cannot be given, but we are well aware of the concern which has been expressed, particularly by the public warehousing industry."—[Official Report, 11 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 165.]
      I do not suggest that the Minister is unaware of the anxieties or that he suggested that problems would not arise when the matter went through Committee two years ago. Now that the Minister's foresight has been borne out and the problems are obvious to the affected firms, what does he intend to do?
      Only last week the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said:
      "It is senseless that people should be encouraged to move out of one area into an enterprise zone thereby causing the loss of jobs in one area and the creation of jobs in another. Is that not silly?
      The Under-Secretary replied:
      "That inference cannot yet be drawn."—[Official Report, 23 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 286.]
      It may not be silly if the Government's economic management results in that type of circumstance but we are entitled to some explanations.
      Mr. Cowans: The Under-Secretary said that that inference could not be drawn. It can, as there are two firms in my area that wish to expand. However, they have discovered that because of the enterprise zone, a national concern that trades in the same type of commodity has moved into that enterprise zone and looks set to cause the closure of existing local businesses because it enjoys the advantages of being in the enterprise zone. The Minister freely admitted that there were problems. Not only could he have accepted that the entire site should have its rates reduced; he could also have insisted that the rates of firms in the same line of business, whether inside or on the outskirts of an enterprise zone, should be reduced to equalise competition. I understood that to be his policy.
      Mr. Graham: Although the matter has been expressed in a partisan way, the Minister should be aware that the
      922
      Opposition recognise that there are Labour-controlled authorities that, in their desperate search for jobs, have been willing to grasp at almost any straw. The enterprise zone concept appeared two years ago to give them an advantage. They wanted that advantage. It should be borne in mind that many zones have not been operating for two years—many have been in existence for only a matter of months. The Minister should say something helpful about the problem.
      There remains the vexed question of the possibility of landlords and developers, recognising the attraction of enterprise zones because companies must pay no rates, increasing rent. For example, if the rent for a factory is £50,000 a year and the rates that must normally be paid are £20,000 a year, the combined cost to the entrepreneur is £70,000. Because rates are not paid the cost is only £50,000. It is only human nature that the landlord may ask for more—say £60,000 or £65,000—as that is still less than would otherwise be the case.
      I hope that the Minister will say that there is no evidence—although I believe that there is—that taxpayers' money in the form of rate relief is being exploited in that way. The Under-Secretary said that £10 million was likely to be given to local authorities in England in compensation for gainsaid rates in 1982–83. I hope that that sum will encourage people to move into enterprise zones and that it will not merely be a hidden subsidy to developers or landlords who rake in money in the way that I have outlined.
      The Minister may well say that evidence is being sought. I picked up in The Economist earlier this year a piece of evidence from the Trafford Park zone, showing that property values inside the zone had risen by 30 per cent. while those outside had fallen by 25 per cent. in the 12 months just ended. Perhaps it is facile to argue that property values are depressed outside and inflated inside the zone—and rents will reflect those values—because there are so many inducements, but we are certainly entitled to an answer from the Minister on that.
      The Minister should also give us some idea of the job situation. To be fair to the Minister, in Standing Committee he told us what he hoped would happen and in the past two years a great deal has happened in the economy that he perhaps could not have anticipated. Nevertheless, he should tell us not only how many jobs it was hoped would be created but whether the jobs created by the factories that were opened were merely transfers from factories outside to factories inside an enterprise zone because it was cheaper to operate there. Secondly, how many firms went into the enterprise zones but have now either gone out of existence or moved out of the enterprise zones because they have not turned out to be so attractive as was hoped? In this short debate, the Minister has the opportunity to set our minds at rest on that.
      I attended a conference recently at which representatives of the new towns of the North-East were greatly concerned that Government money was simply chasing itself all over the place. The public are investing money in new towns, in enterprise zones and in special development areas, all of which are advertising and trying to attract business to themselves. The new towns were seriously asking what was the point of the Government encouraging, for instance, an enterprise zone in Hartlepool with inducements to industrialists to go there when they would be tapping the same source of firms which might bring jobs to the new towns. I had not noticed my hon.

      923
      Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) sitting behind me, but I am delighted to see him as he has taken a keen interest in the concept of enterprise zones. Nevertheless, a dilemma that the history of enterprise zones has now revealed is that, however good may be the Government's intentions in trying to find an answer to some of the regional problems, other people within the regions, if they are not actually looking upon them with a jaundiced eye, are certainly wondering what is the point of one area benefiting if it is to the disbenefit of another.
      As has been mentioned, the concept of enterprise zones comes from Hong Kong and the Far East. It was believed that if the climate in which successful enterprises had flourished in the Far East could be translated to some of our regions they, too, would succeed. That completely misses the point. Our argument is that if resources are available to sustain industry there is a massive job for the Government to do throughout the economy. That means not merely shifting a few hundred jobs around some part of the North-East, the North-West or Scotland, but an economic and employment initiative that will really solve the problems. We do not believe that the Government's efforts with enterprise zones are anything like what is required. We shall not oppose the amendment as it attempts to deal with an anomaly, but the Minister will have to give some very satisfactory answers to the other problems that have been exposed in the debate.
      Mr. King: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply briefly to the points raised. I think that the House will have some sympathy with the last example chosen by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). He was no doubt quoting when he asked what was the point of helping Hartlepool, only to turn around and find his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) sitting behind him, no doubt well able to deliver a short, sharp answer to that. I think that some of the points that I shall develop will make the situation clear.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton is always extremely fair and it was honourable of him to accept partial responsibility for the need for the amendment. He acknowledged that he was a member of the Standing Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill and we all failed to spot a point that should have been covered and which could have been raised by any member of the Committee.
      Mr. Graham: The Minister must recognise that the problem now is where the line was drawn on the map. The designations were not known to the Committee. If proper care had been taken with the precise designation of the area, the problem would have been foreseen.
      Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. In designating enterprise zones, lines must be drawn somewhere. That is inevitable. One then runs into the problems that we now see. Any hon. Member could have spotted the difficulty, but none of us did. I fully accept, of course, that the Government have the ultimate responsibility. We are now seeking to put this right and to overcome this small technical point.
      I could take exception and say that this is a very narrow debate concerned merely with the straddling of boundaries, but if the House is to consider this narrow point properly, it is perfectly fair to ask certain questions
      924
      about enterprise zones. Therefore, so long as I do not stray outside your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
      It was clear that the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) and Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) felt considerable hostility towards the enterprise zones and that they regret them. That is interesting. No doubt it would interest the workers of Scotswood at the new Vickers factory in Newcastle which I had the pleasure of visiting. That will now be the largest enclosed manufacturing construction in Europe. Vickers faced a very difficult situation at its old, awkward, rundown site at Elswick, and the whole future of the plant was very much in doubt. I have it on very good authority that the project might never have gone ahead and that it was the introduction of the enterprise zone as much as any other factor which resulted not in the loss of all those jobs but in their re-establishment in the most modem new facility which is the best hope for the future of those people. I am sure that those people, whether or not they are the hon. Gentleman's constituents, will note with interest his condemnation of the enterprise zone and the criticism and hostility that he has expressed.
      Mr. Cowans: The Minister must not mislead the House and people outside, as he now seeks to do. As Hansard will show—if he had listened, he might not be making such statements now—I was pointing out the anomalies that had been created, and I asked three specific questions because the Minister now has the opportunity to clear up some of the anomalies. Of course I welcome Elswick, but the Minister must also remember another aspect.
      This may be new knowledge to him. When Scotswood closed, Vickers intended to develop the Elswick site. Since the establishment of the enterprise zone, Vickers has moved back to Scotswood. I welcome that, but it leaves a vacant site inside the enterprise zone.
      The Minister must not mislead the House. He knows that there are anomalies. He has an opportunity to put them right. No one suggests that the enterprise zones should be washed out, but the Minister must inform the House of exactly what is said, and not his interpretation of it.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. King: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but by the time he had finished with the anomalies one was left with the feeling that he has a strong distaste for the whole experiment. That was certainly my impression, and why I made my comments. If he is now saying that he supports the enterprise zones, I welcome that.
      I agree that there are anomalies. I told the Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that there would be difficulties. The country is in economic difficulty and, as a Minister, I am endeavouring to get things going. But, here we go again. We have the "do nothing" brigade who advocate doing nothing because to do something will mean problems, difficulties and anomalies. There always will be such problems, but for some that is a reason for doing nothing.
      I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supports regional policy. Regional policy in the North-East is based on the whole concept that there will be discrimination. Some areas will receive benefits and advantages. That is accepted. My constituency is next door to an assisted area. Ever since I came into the House I have lived with exactly those criticisms. Just over the boundary there are

      925
      advantages in benefits, investment grants and regional development grants, all enjoyed by companies. There was also the regional employment premium, although that has now gone. I have lost employment for my constituents because firms could go elsewhere and get greater benefits.
      I have the problem of firms being set up in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or close to it, in competition with firms in my constituency and enjoying regional development grants for the full capital investment of new plant. Those grants are not available to my constituents. That bias, if one can call it that, has always been built in to regional policy. With enterprise zones that same concept and approach is heightened because the areas are that much closer. The disparity is all the more visible.
      Enterprise zones are an experiment to tackle some of the most deep-seated problems in the areas that need such zones. One need only look at some of the problems in the sites contained in the enterprise zones. I have had the pleasure of visiting Hartlepool, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool knows, and seeing the enterprise zone and the possibilities that exist there.
      One of the most difficult tasks that I have had to undertake as a Minister is to traverse the Trafford Park enterprise zone in Manchester to find fair boundaries. It is arbitrary and difficult. We tried to find the fairest possible basis. I accept that the scheme is not perfect, but it is a determined attempt to achieve a fair balance in a difficult area.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My constituency is in exactly the same position as my right hon. Friend's. We have competition from new towns and areas receiving special grants, and so on. An enterprise zone is not too far away. I agree that the Government must have a range of options in seeking to help the worst areas. However, as unemployment has spread throughout the country there are some areas, and parts of some areas, where unemployment was low but is now increasing. In some of the good areas certain parts have an unemployment rate approaching 12 or 13 per cent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department, and the Government as a whole, must now look at the rating system and the possibility of derating the parts of industry that even in the good areas may be feeling the draught? Should they receive a reduction in rates to help them to compete with the assisted areas?
      Mr. King: If we take on the whole subject of industrial derating I am sure that we shall go sharply out of order.
      The phrase "fair competition" has been used. I accept that it is not fair competition in the sense that regional policy has not been fair competition. There is a deliberate tilt. The view has been taken by Governments of both parties that there is a need deliberately to distort the basis to encourage particular areas.
      Mr. McWilliam: Before the Minister dismisses that point so sharply, does he accept that, although there is an argument for a regional distortion in competition, there is no argument for two factories—GKN Galloway and George Johnstone—that are 500 yards apart and producing the same product when one enjoys the advantages of regional policy and the other does not? That has happened.
      Mr. King: That is the point I have made. It has accentuated a state of affairs that exists under regional
      926
      policy. For example, there is a company in my constituency making central heating pumps. It is competing with a company making the same product—a foreign company at that—that has been set in a new town in the North East that received regional development aid. It would not matter whether those companies were 500 yards apart or 300 miles apart. That distortion of competition is keenly felt by the company in my constituency. It is unable to get the subsidy on its investment that is available to its competitor.
      The hon. Member for Blaydon made a very serious allegation against the Library that has caused me some confusion. I understand that a copy of the report was deposited in the Library. The hon. Gentleman said that someone in the economic affairs section has a copy for which he paid. There appears to be something curious that must be investigated. This is the first time that I have heard that if a document is owned by the economic affairs unit in the Library it is not available to Members—that it is a private copy. However, I am assured that a copy of the report was deposited with the Library.
      This is the first report. It does not deal with the progress of enterprise zones. It records what happened before the enterprise zones came into operation. The subsequent monitoring reports, the first of which will be produced in the autumn, will show what changes have occurred. The reports will not be limited to the enterprise zones. We are also looking at what is happening outside them. That is important. That is one of the obvious aspects to consider and it has not come as a blinding revelation. We want to know whether firms are moving in from elsewhere or whether new firms are being set up. A rough check has been kept for the Clydebank enterprise zone. It shows that half the firms are new firms.
      We are in the early stages. I remind the House that the most recent enterprise zone to be set up is on the Isle of Dogs. That was opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as recently as 21 May. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said that his constituency was close to an enterprise zone. The enterprise zone at Corby was one of the first to get under way and it has moved extremely fast. We do not have detailed monitored results at this stage, but we are trying to keep a rough idea of progress. The results vary in different parts of the country. Corby is probably in the lead at the moment, but there are encouraging signs of activity in a number of enterprise zones. The Isle of Dogs zone, being the most recent, has hardly got under way.
      I understand that things are afoot with regard to the Leyland factory at Speke. It is possible that contracts will shortly be exchanged with the developer who proposes to split the factory into smaller units that can be brought back into more effective use.
      Rents present a difficult problem. In a sense, one could say that that is sufficient objection not to do this at all. We cannot prevent some leakage or slippage of enhancing rents in such areas. A gentleman much involved in an enterprise zone told me that it was not a bad thing if some of the rents did rise, thereby encouraging more construction and activity by making these areas economically more viable. That is a slightly circular argument. The point is that there is a time pressure on developers and owners to get these enterprise zones into development. If they hike the prices too high and do not attract people to take advantage of these benefits, time will slip away. We must remember that this is a 10-year

      927
      exemption benefit. Therefore, the longer it takes to being these areas into development, the more people will lose some of the benefit that flows from them. That is the principle upon which the rate concession has been established.
      Mr. Graham: The Minister referred to Corby. My information is that the rental values in the Corby zone have gone up from £1·80 to £2·20, an increase of about 25 per cent. I appreciate that the problem is complex. However, if we are trying to induce people to come into such zones and the total package of non-rates and grants equates with what exists outside the zones, what incentive is there if the rents eat up the benefit of not paying the rates?
      Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understood the point that I made. Property owners in the enterprise zones have a diminishing asset. They must attract people fast, otherwise the assets steadily become worthless. Independent market forces will, therefore, drive people to let the properties and get them occupied, because that is where the benefit lies, otherwise they will lose the benefit of their rates exemption. That is a judgment that they will have to make.
      In certain areas, the rents went up but have now come down simply because of the failure to attract tenants. It is for the developers to worry about whether they attract the tenants. If they do not, they will not get the rents and it is very much in their interests to do so.
      It is still too early to give a clear picture about the enterprise zones, but there are some encouraging signs. My visit to the new Vickers factory was one of the most encouraging that I have made. Developments in respect of a number of enterprise zones hold real prospects.
      The House will understand that this is an experiment that the Government believe was well worth trying. It is an alternative approach for precisely the reasons that I am sure the hon. Member for Hartlepool would have given had he intervened. New towns have enjoyed considerable benefits over the years. That has been a form of incentive attraction. Some of the old towns that want help to revive their inner city or derelict areas are entitled to these enterprise zones. The Government believe that this is a further sensible weapon in the armoury of assistance to help tackle some very difficult problems.
      I have strayed wide of the amendment, but I hope that my comments have been of interest and I hope that the House will support the Lords amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister has coaxed me to say a few words, but I shall not be critical of any attempt to attract employment to areas where work is badly needed. All Governments have suffered the dilemma of finding an adequate solution to this problem. It has been a very costly business ever since the war, beginning with the Hailsham report, to obtain work in the depressed areas.
      I made a personal approach to the Prime Minister about private enterprise zones and received an immediate answer within 24 hours. It pleased the county council and the Hartlepool district council when an enterprise zone for that area was added to the list. I have also received co-operation from the Minister with regard to boundaries. Although I was not successful in persuading him of my case, I accepted the strength of his argument. The potent
      928
      factor was that this was a high-cost job provision. That must be borne in mind when we consider the armoury of aids to the regions.
      I apologise for intervening, but I do so only because my constituency has been mentioned. There is understandable and reasoned anxiety about existing industries in the enterprise zone areas. I do not intend to name companies, because that is not the way that I wish to proceed. I deal merely with the principles and the general evidence and urge the Minister to give some indication, which he has more than partly given, that monitoring must accompany a new idea such as this.
      My experience is that even in the short term there are fly-by-night developers, such as the high-risk entrepreneurs, who love to play with other people's money and who attempt to produce employment in constituencies such as mine where there is 25 per cent. male unemployment and 2,000 young people without a full-time job. To me, such people are more nauseating than muggers or drug pushers because they deliberately throw a spanner into the efforts and work of Ministers.
      I know from experience that certain people have talked glibly of developments worth millions of pounds and that within months they have skived off and left a trail of company debris behind, not to mention £1½ million of unsecured loans. Small companies have been crippled by such action.
      I know of a company that moved only eight or nine miles into an enterprise zone and told the workers "Unless you travel here, you are finished." That has been followed by a change in the rate for the job. As a result, low income workers with transport problems are in understandable difficulty.
      An employer can move only a short distance and enjoy the benefits of the rent moratorium, the rate rebates and all the rest that goes with the frills of the enterprise zone initiative.
      A company in my constituency closed with £1 million worth of engineering orders. A nationalised industry closed it, yet another company was given £¼ million of public money from British Steel Industries Ltd., from the National Westminster Bank, from the English Industrial Estates Corporation and the county authority. I shall not identify the company in the House, but I shall write to the Minister about it because what I have to say is serious. The company received more than £200,000 without any examination of the entrepreneur's previous background, or where he had been in the past five years.
      The House might think that incredible, but it happened because I have had the officers of the lending bodies before me and they have had to admit it.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman gave a list of names of the institutions which supported the company, including a bank and a county council. Is he saying that the representatives of the bank and the county council did not examine the facts, or were not able to ask the kind of questions that would give them an impression of the status of this man?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) should not be led astray. If we go down that road we shall be led far away from the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Leadbitter: I say no more than I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall be writing to the Minister.

      929
      I can confirm that there was no knowledge of the past professional background over a period of five years of the person who benefited. It is important to bear that in mind.
      I say this with some feeling because in the House there are hon. Members on both sides who have spent much of their public lives trying to solve the problem of unemployment in depressed areas. The examples that I have given are but a few. They emphasise the need for the Government to say to those responsible for enterprise zones that it is now time to monitor and to set down guidelines. Existing industries must not be put at risk.
      Companies should not be allowed to move short distances, discarding employees and taking on others at less cost because of the benefit of a new deal. Many of us are anxious to help the Government. Harsher criticisms could have been offered to the Minister on the subject on enterprise zones than those that I have offered.
      However, we have the enterprise zones and it is our job to try to make them work. Therefore, the Minister will have the full support of hon. Members so that together we can make the enterprise zones more viable and less of a worry to other industries.
      Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.

  New Clause E

    INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF BLOCK GRANT
    Lords amendment: No. 13, insert the following new clause—
    "E. — (1) The Secretary of State shall have power to require any information submitted to him by a local authority under section 65(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (information for purposes of block grant) to be certified under arrangements made by the Audit Commission established under Part III of this Act.
    (2) The said section 65(1) shall have effect with the substitution for the words "the total expenditure to be incurred" of the words "the expenditure incurred or to be incurred" and as if section 4 above were included in the provisions there mentioned.
    (3) Subsection (2) above has effect in relation to any year beginning on or after 1st April 1981."
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 32.
    Mr. Roberts: Subsection (1) of the new clause is designed to allow the present arrangements for the certification of block grant claims to continue under the audit commission. In the past, as the House will know, administrative arrangements have been made for the district auditor to certify rate support grant claims. This has provided the necessary independent check on the figures and has ensured consistency between authorities in the calculation of grants. I think that we are all agreed that consistency is of great value in this context.
    The same can be achieved in future by providing for the audit commission to make arrangements for the certification of claims. We actually envisaged the certification being done by whoever the commission has appointed to audit the local authority's main accounts. That seems sensible, and the House would certainly agree
    930
    that the Secretary of State should require a formal certificate for a claim for such significant amounts of central Government grant.
    That takes care of subsection (1) of the new clause. Subsections (2) and (3) correct a deficiency in drafting of section 65(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which was taken directly from regulations made under the 1974 Act, and which was not wholly appropriate to block grant.
    The opportunity has also been taken to extend the scope of section 65(1) to include the information required for the purposes of clause 4, which, if the Bill is passed, will be as much a part of the grant calculation as the sections of the 1980 Act referred to in section 65(1). In short, the amendment dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" of a procedure that has already been accepted in substance. Therefore, I ask the House to agree to it.
    Amendment No. 32 is consequential on amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which I hope that we shall discuss in a few moments.
    Mr. Gordon Oakes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his short explanation, but we ought to consider the importance of the amendment first in relation to amendment No. 32. The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendment is consequential. It may be consequential, but it severely alters the long title of the Bill in an important way. I stress that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) earlier, when he was talking about the money resolution, because of the power of the House, and hon. Members who make up a Committee examining a Bill.
    Were an amendment of this nature to be submitted by a member of the Committee, the Chairman, who would come under your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks advising him, would advise that that amendment was out of order. The amendment would not be selected, so it could not be considered.
    In certain circumstances, and with difficulty, the Government can introduce an amendment to alter the long title of the Bill, but it is done with great forethought. If one is alerted by an amendment to the long title of the Bill a row takes place about why it should be done and why the Government had not had the foresight to present the Bill properly in the first place with the proper title.
    However, in the other place, the Government seem to have complete immunity to introduce almost anything into a Bill and, in a cavalier fashion, amend the long title of a Bill subsequently. The amendment is drastic. According to the original long title, the intention of the Bill is
    "to amend the provisions relating to adjustments of the distribution of block grant".
    That is one thing, but as amended that will read
    "to amend the provisions relating to block grant."
    That is wide and sweeping. It is necessary for the Government to amend the long title to achieve their objective. The amendment goes futher than the Under-Secretary described.
    Amendment No. 13 states that the provision shall have effect
    "in relation to any year beginning on or after 1st April 1981."
    That gives powers to the audit commission, which is not yet in existence, to make arrangements for the presentation of information to the Government in respect of last year's

    931
    block grant. Why is that necessary? An error or lack of foresight cannot be the answer because of the words in new clause E(2). The Bill uses the words
    "the total expenditure to be incurred".
    That is understandable because the information relates to that year and the block grant can be determined for that year. The amendment substitutes the words
    "the expenditure incurred or to be incurred".
    That takes into account what happened in 1981 before the audit commission operated.
    The Under-Secretary said that the information was supplied by the district auditor. That may be true, but the suspicion is that local authorities do not submit the correct information to the Minister. I hope that the Minister will deny that vociferously, but there is scintilla of a suspicion.
    6 pm
    The audit commission is a contentious body. Even though it has been watered down from its original concept, local authorities are suspicious that the commission could turn out to be "Her Majesty's Inspectors' Department for the Scourging of Local Authorities". Both Labour and Conservative authorities fear that. Why does the audit commission have to interfere with information supplied to the Department of the Environment in relation to last year's block grant? Why does the whole of section 65 of the old Act have to be amended to take care of that? Why is it necessary for the long title of the Bill to be amended in an underhand fashion in another place?
    Mr. McWilliam: My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) caught me out when he triggered my mind to an aspect that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales did not mention. We shall not vote against Lords amendment No. 13, but if the Government were serious in their intention to reduce public expenditure they would not press the amendment. I do not believe that Ministers have understood the financial consequences of the amendment. We are talking not about the local government audit service, but expensive private auditors, whose time costs a great deal.
    Mr. Christopher Price: They are probably members of the Tory Party.
    Mr. McWilliam: They probably are members of the Tory Party, and perhaps not too worried about expenditure. A total audit and valuation has to be made for an effective certification of claims for block grant. Some auditors work on a £50 per day basis, at least, so it will cost a great deal of money.
    I invite the Minister to explain where the money will come from. Will it be reckonable for rate support grant purposes so that only half comes from the ratepayers, or will it all come from the ratepayers? Let us be clear. We are talking of unnecessary expenditure, which the Government intend to ram down the throats of hard-pressed ratepayers. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the amendment.
    I accept that the wording in the 1980 Act is deficient, but I do not accept that the Minister has any right to introduce the provision before 1 April 1983. We are now well into the financial year beginning 1 April 1982. I dislike retrospective legislation, whether it is to clear up yet another blunder by the Government or whether it has more sinister purposes. I believe that the amendment is intended to clear up another blunder.
    I urge the Minister to reconsider Lords amendment No. 13. It will cost a lot of money. It will lead to claims taking
    932
    longer. Perhaps that is why he agrees with the amendment. Perhaps he does not want block grant claims to be submitted on a timeless basis. Perhaps he wants another half-year system. If claims do not reach his Department in time, local authorities will not receive the money. How can the Government ensure that the proposal will not interfere with claims being submitted timelessly?
    I have read Lords amendment No. 32 carefully and I approve of it. I give it my unqualified support. It states:
    "leave out 'adjustments of the distribution of".
    That relates to block grant. Clause 4 says:
    "In subsection (6) of section 59 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (purposes for which the amount of block grant payable to a local authority may be adjusted under that section) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted" the guidance and so on.
    Neither on Second Reading nor in Committee have we made any secret of our abhorrence of everything that is in clause 4, which includes powers to adjust the distribution of block grant. I welcome amendment No. 32 wholeheartedly because if it is carried I shall raise a point of order asking that clause 4 be ruled out of order since its import will not be contained within the long title of the Bill. The amendment is entirely different from amendments No. 13 and 32 on which the Government had to resort to the subterfuge of introducing a second money resolution. The amendment changes the long title of the Bill in such a way as to eliminate the disgusting effects of clause 4 and the attempts to impose holdback.
    Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that amendment No. 13 is unnecessary and will cost a lot of money and that amendment No. 32 is the best thing that could have happened. I hope that he rejects everything that he said about clause 4 and withdraws it before the Chair has to rule it out of order.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: These fairly simple amendments have aroused unexpected and surprising debate. I shall deal with the points as they were made. The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) made a great deal of amendment No. 32—the amendment to the long title—which is designed to cover amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
    The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam put his finger on the reason why subsection (3) of the new clause goes back to 1 April 1981. The reason has nothing to do with the audit commission. There is a drafting error in the 1980 Act in section 65(1), which is about the provision of information and it is because of the drafting error that we must have this change.
    Amendment No. 13 affects subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause, and the change that we are envisaging will enable not just total spending, but current expenditure or any other item of expenditure to be considered. It was suggested that we might be casting aspersions on the reliability of the information provided by the local authorities. I assure the right hon. Member for Widnes that there is no suggestion that authorities might deliberately mislead the Department. Audit certification is necessary to ensure that all claims are consistent. I have already emphasised the need for consistency and I stress too the need for continuity.
    6.15 pm
    The hon. Member for Blaydon referred to the cost of audits. My noble Friend Lord Bellwin said in another place that the total cost is less than £100,000. Considering the number of authorities involved, that is not too large a sum.

    933
    I do not agree that the amendment will place further significant demands on local authorities. There are wide powers in section 65(1) of the 1980 Act to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to obtain information for block grant purposes. The Lords amendment would oblige local authorities to furnish expenditure statistics so that holdback can be calculated accurately. It was always envisaged that the conclusive calculation of block grant would be based on outturn figures and these will also be used for holdback.
    Since the clause will be as much a part of the grant calculation as are the sections of the 1980 Act referred to in section 65(1), it is only right that subsection (1) should be tidied up as the amendment proposes.
    I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Blaydon that the cost of certifying grant claims will be relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes.
    Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful for that assurance, but will the Under-Secretary tell us a little more about Lord Bellwin's estimate of £100,000? There are more than 400 local authorities and £100,000 would not pay for much auditors' time. I estimate that it works out at about half a day's work by a partly qualified assistant for each local authority, which would be less than adequate in the light of the duty that the House is about to place on the audit commission.
    Mr. Roberts: My noble Friend Lord Bellwin said that at present the audit of rate support grant claims costs less than £100,000 for the whole country and that he did not expect that the cost would be significantly, if at all, greater in future. I cannot add to that or provide details of the auditors' time involved.
    Block grant certification payments will be made by local authorities. Clause 22 makes it clear that the audit commission must undertake grant certification work if required by a local authority and that it is to charge the authority concerned. That seems reasonable since certification is a service to the body that receives the grant.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 32 agreed to.

  New Clause F

    BLOCK GRANT FOR RECEIVER FOR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT
    Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 4, after the words last inserted, insert the following new Clause F—
    "F.—(1) Schedule (Block grant: Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) to this Act shall have effect for enabling block grant to be paid to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.
    (2) This section has effect for any year beginning on or after 1st April 1983."
    Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29.
    Mr. King: The amendments and the schedule which accompanies them deal with a point that was raised originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and to which we responded as positively as we could. We said at that time that we would see whether
    934
    it was possible to work along these lines. Subsequently, we had the unanimous approach of the London Boroughs Association. Indeed, an amendment was tabled in the other place on behalf of the London Boroughs Association and was also supported by representatives of the Association of District Councils. It is a sensible provision to ensure that rating authorities in the Metropolitan Police district do not suffer unexpected losses or gains as a result of the changes in the Metropolitan Police's expenditure over which they might have no control. The London Boroughs Association has pressed the provision strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch left us in no doubt about where he stood on the matter and urged this course on us. After due consideration we thought it was the right course to take. I apologise to the House if the amendments are somewhat lengthy but the principle is simple. It enables block grant to be paid direct to the receiver.
    Mr. Cartwright: I should like to welcome the amendments because, as the Minister said, they tidy up an anomaly. They are sensible amendments. I am one of the few hon. Members taking part in our discussions today who was not on the Standing Committee of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. Therefore, I do not know why section 64 and schedule 11 of that Bill proposed to pay Metropolitan Police block grant to the rating authorities. It was not a good idea. It breaches the basic principle that block grant should be paid to the authorities providing the service. It undermines the accountability of the local authorities concerned because they are receiving funds for services that they are not providing. More importantly, it undermines the accountability of the Metropolitan Police. I am always arguing that we should be increasing the financial accountability of the Metropolitan Police. I have always been unhappy that the receiver of the Metropolitan Police can precept on the authorities in the Metropolitan Police district who must pay over the money that he requires. That has always seemed to me to be taxation without representation.
    Apart from the problem of accountability, there are serious accounting problems to which the Minister referred. Local authorities in the Metropolitan Police district have to make some estimate in their budgets of the amount of block grant that the Metropolitan Police will receive. It is a difficult operation given the current ways in which block grant is calculated. It depends now to some extent on the decisions of the Secretary of State. It depends to some extent on the authority's own spending and on the spending of other authorities. Therefore, the calculation will be changing throughout the period of the grant year. It cannot be definite until the grant year is completed.
    If a local authority takes a pessimistic view about the level of block grant it will levy a higher rate than it should in order to protect itself against unexpected demands. That would harm the ratepayers and would be against the policy of rating as tightly as possible, for which the Government argue. If an authority takes an optimistic view it runs the risk of having to cover an underestimate from its reserves. If those reserves are not sufficient, the authority will now have to go to the Secretary of State and ask for borrowing powers. In other words, it will be placing itself in jeopardy as a result of factors that are outside its control.
    As the Minister said, the London Boroughs Association has pressed amendment No. 14 for some time. I am glad to hear that the Government are accepting the amendments

    935
    because they tidy up sensibly an anomaly which should never have existed, and remove practical problems. I welcome the amendments.
    Mr. Robin Squire: I introduced the amendment in Committee and I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on the action they have taken. I do not intend to make a long contribution. The reasoning behind the amendment was given in Committee and has been reiterated today by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). I should like to use a football vernacular which I have used in the context of more than one amendment on this subject in the past two or three years. I feel like the man who thinks he has scored a goal, has been ruled offside and then had the decision changed by a friendly Russian referee who has allowed the goal to stand after due discussion and the odd protest. I welcome that goal warmly.
    All the local authorities in the greater Metropolitan area will appreciate the amendment. It will simplify what is still a complicated procedure, but to the extent that it makes it marginally less complicated we should welcome it and I am sure that they will.
    Mr. Christopher Price: I do not pretend to understand the depths of complication that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) explained so carefully in Committee, but, like everyone else, I welcome the amendment.
    The problem of the accountability of the Metropolitan Police has been raised in a small way in our debates on the Bill. Earlier speeches have referred to the complications and to the guessing game that individual local authorities now have to play to try to find out what the eventual grant will be. But the guessing game has coincided with much wider arguments about how one achieves accountability for a large amount of money from an organisation that is provided with money through the rates, and that so far has been wholly unaccountable except in the sense that from time to time we can ask the Home Secretary questions about it in the House.
    The London borough of Lewisham, part of which I represent, did a great service to the public 18 months ago by threatening—it did not carry out the threat—that it would not pay its precept to the Metropolitan Police under certain circumstances unless it, Lewisham, achieved a great deal more accountability than it had until then. For Lewisham, that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
    In 1978, because of the sheer obstinacy of the Commissioner, Sir David McNee, we were subjected to a great deal of physical damage and harassment as a result of a National Front march. The march could have been avoided if the Metropolitan Police had been more accountable and had advised the Home Secretary that the march should be called off, as the Home Secretary has been advised in similar circumstances ever since. The people of London saw what happened in Lewisham in 1978, and finally the Metropolitan Police came to their senses and realised that on balance National Front marches had to be banned. The amendments have come to us because the Government have been introducing more and more centralised and complicated ways of paying rate support grant.
    Every time they make a change they find that they have made a mistake and so they have to introduce an amendment in Committee. Every time they do that they
    936
    find that they have made another mistake and so they have to introduce an amendment on Report, and so the process continues until we are called upon to consider Lords amendments. We should not imagine that we are at the end of the road and that the Government now have it right. Our experience since the 1980 Act is that the Department of the Environment's legislation throws up more anomalies than it solves, and so it will be with the Metropolitan Police.
    6.30 pm
    The Government have acceded to a reasonable request from the London Boroughs Association, which was supported moderately and eloquently by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). The Government have responded by producing this "solution". If the Government are to pay the block grant direct to the Metropolitan Police, that is even more reason for saying that that has not satisfied financial accountability. I suppose that the audit commission might be able to investigate whether the Metropolitan Police needs all the riot shields that it has and then to make a judgment on whether it is getting value for money from the riot shields, fire hoses and water cannon that it buys. The audit commission might have a right to do that but it must go beyond that.
    The House must establish a system under which the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the receiver of the Metropolitan Police must come before democratic representatives, whether that is under the aegis of the GLC, as some of my colleagues on that body want, through the London Boroughs Association, or through the procedures of the Public Accounts Committee in the House. Under such a system they should be called on to provide far more answers than they are willing now to give. I am talking about the money that has been spent, and especially the policies that underpin their demands for money to be made available.
    Financial accountability on its own is meaningless. There is no point in asking "How have you spent the money?" The tone of the Bill is that it is silly to put in auditors merely to ascertain whether there is a receipt for a cheque that has been paid out. The thrust of the Government's policies within the Bill is what the Government call value for money. We are talking about value for money audits.
    We have seen how local authorities are to be subjected to value for money audits. How does the Minister propose that the Metropolitan Police is to be subjected to a value-for-money audit under the new block grant direct payment arrangement which is laid in the amendment? If the Minister proposes to change the system, he should not present the amendment to the House by saying "This is a small amendment that was agreed to in another place to help this body". He should explain what impact the new audit commission will have, with its private auditors—Mr. Ian Hay-Davidson, Mr. Arthur Anderson and other great and wonderful individuals who will be brought from the Conservative Party and other parties, but substantially from the Conservative Party—in providing value for money for the great public services of Britain. How does the Minister propose that the Metropolitan Police will be subject to value-for-money auditing?
    When a service such as the Metropolitan Police is comparatively well funded compared with education or housing, and when the money is flowing fairly easily because the Government have decided to make a priority

    937
    of the police, there is a great danger that the money will start to be wasted. For example, there may be a desperate attempt to spend everything by 1 April to ensure that funding will continue at the same level. The police are comparatively well funded and they should be under stronger rather than weaker scrutiny exactly for that reason.
    The Minister has explained the effect of the Lords amendments and we all welcome them, but I want to know rather more. For example, I want to know whether the Minister is willing to apply to the Metropolitan Police the stringent value-for-money audit that he says he wants to apply to so-called overspending local authorities such as the Greater London Council and the London borough of Lewisham. Will it be one law for the Metropolitan Police and another for Labour local authorities? That is the question that I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The Metropolitan Police is just as capable of overspending as local authorities.
    Mr. Graham: The amendment is good sense and long overdue. There may have been some unease about the manner in which the Metropolitan Police received its money partly by direct grant and partly by means of a precept. The amendment comes before us because of the unhappy experience of local government over the past two years, which has been the direct result of the Government's financial policies and methods aggravating a difficult situation. No more money will find its way to the Metropolitan Police than that which it already receives. However, the money will be funded to it more directly. It should be possible to be much more precise about who is responsible for the various elements within the total bill. Nothing is more irritating to a local council than to be responsible for what it has spent and to be answerable for what it has not spent.
    Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has had only good things to say about the police generally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, the raison d'etre of the Bill is not merely value for money but accountability. The Minister must explain to the House the system that he will operate to ensure that every penny that is provided from the public purse, centrally or locally, is accountable. The amendment is necessary because of the uncertainty and instability that have faced local government over the past two years.
    The amendment will mean additional work for the Government and additional bureaucracy, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have responded to the pressures from the LBA and all the metropolitan authorities. I understand that there has been some opposition from one or two authorities that are covered only indirectly by the London boroughs. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. Those people have been trying to act on behalf of their ratepayers and they must feel aggrieved, or perhaps they misunderstand what is happening. However, the Opposition appreciate and welcome the Lords amendment.
    Mr. King: I shall pick up the final point that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made about one or two authorities that were concerned about the changes. One example has been drawn to my attention recently, which involved presentation. The previous presentation
    938
    was not the most helpful. The Metropolitan Police grant was debited against the borough rate and the gross amount of Metropolitan Police expenditure was shown separately. The effect is that the same net result is produced, but it is misleading. That is not the best way to act. The authority was concerned about the changes involved, but, with that one exception, the change has universal support.
    I now turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). The background to the system that we are changing is that previously things were done in the way in which they had always been done. As we are a Government who never make a change for the sake of making a change and who are always anxious to move with the grain in society, we left the arrangement as it was. It is now clear, on a logical analysis, that that was not the most sensible way to act. Therefore, after we had listened carefully to the arguments we were persuaded that the changes should be made.
    The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) took me a little wider than the issue of the payment of block grant direct to the Metropolitan Police. I noted his words carefully when he said "We cannot leave it there." I thought that he never did. The hon. Gentleman then gave a short dissertation on the subject of the accountability of the Metropolitan Police. He asked whether there was to be one law for the Metropolitan Police in terms of value-for-money auditing and another for local authorities. The answer is "No."
    The Metropolitan Police will be the subject of proper value-for-money examination auditing, not under the audit commission. The list of bodies that will be covered by the audit commission includes combined police authorities but the Metropolitan Police, with the police authority being the Home Secretary, must come under the Comptroller and Auditor General, and are subject to his rigorous value-for-money studies. There are certainly no tighter regimes.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 29 agreed to.

  Clause 5

    ESTABLISHMENT OF AUDIT COMMISSION
    Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 5, line 15, after "shall" insert ", after the like consultation,"
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Amendment No. 15 provides that the Secretary of State must consult the organisation specified in clause 5(2)—the local authority associations, the accountancy and the employees bodies—not only about the membership of the commission but about the chairmanship and the deputy chairmanship.
    The chairman and deputy chairman must be members of the commission. I have no doubt that there would be consultation with those bodies anyway before the appointments were made. These are extremely important posts. We accept that it should be made clear in the legislation that appropriate consultation must take place before the chairman and his deputy are appointed. Therefore, we were happy to respond to Opposition pressure in the other place for an amendment to this effect to clause 5.
    Mr. Graham: The Minister fairly said that the Government had responded to pressure from the

    939
    Opposition in another place. That opposition was exactly the same as the opposition expressed to the Minister and his colleagues in the House. There is no difference. Opposition Members had a constant battle about consultation. There was not much of a concrete response in Committee. However, the Government said that they were willing to consider the matter. Somehow, the Minister was unable to concede to Opposition Members in Committee that the force of the arguments that we deployed merited some concessions.
    Mr. King: We always need a little time to think about that.
    Mr. Graham: If what we have tonight is the product of a little time, I hope that it gets a lot of time in the future.
    Mr. Christopher Price: I, too, welcome the sinners back from repentance. I am pleased that they have come round to consulting the bodies that are laid down in the clause about the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the commission. I still think that the proof of this stodgy pudding will be in the eating.
    I notice that the words "Conservative Party" do not appear among the bodies that are to be consulted before the chairman of the audit commission is appointed.—[Interruption.] I shall not table an amendment, but if the Minister tabled a manuscript amendment to insert the words "Conservative Party" that might accord more with reality.
    It is right that the Government have tabled the amendment. Who eventually becomes the chairman and deputy chairman of the audit commission will decide whether it is a credible body. It is extremely important that the Government get this matter right and do not go in for a "jobs for the boys" policy, as they recently did over health authorities. If the health authorities are any guide to the mood that the Conservative Party is in for quango appointments, it augurs badly for the audit commission.
    I hope that the Government take great care, not only with the chairman and deputy chairman, but with all the other members of the commission, to keep at arm's length from their mates in the private accountancy firms. I hope that they try to arrive at some names for chairman and deputy chairman that command general assent across the House and throughout the whole of local government. What the Government have recently done in the Health Service has been extremely damaging in its impact on people's ability to run that service.
    I have put down that marker with no real confidence that it will be adhered to. I hope that the Government will take it on board. To that extent, the amendment is welcome.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 20

    STUDIES FOR IMPROVING ECONOMY ETC. IN LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES
    Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 16, line 25, after "services" insert
    "and of other services provided by bodies whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act,"
    Mr. King: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 17, 20, 21 and 24.
    Mr. King: The amendment will ensure that clause 20, which refers only to "local authorities", encompasses all the other bodies listed in the original clause 6 which, although not encompassed by the term "local authorities", come within the ambit of the audit commission. They include port health authorities, combined police authorities, fire authorities, internal drainage boards and so on. The amendment is self-explanatory.
    Mr. Mc William: Amendment No. 24 appears innocuous. The words to be left out include:
    "section 20 above shall apply in relation to Passenger Transport Executives and the London Transport Executive".
    Clause 20 is titled:
    "Studies for improving economy etc. in local authority services".
    If the Minister is arguing that studies should be undertaken of passenger transport executives, the audit commission is the wrong body to do so. It does not have the necessary expertise.
    In Committee we objected to the wholesale introduction of studies, and the matter will come up again later. It appears that the Minister has overstepped the mark. A more appropriate body should look at the efficiency of transport undertakings. I need hardly remind the Minister of the problems that already exist in some of the undertakings. I should hate to think that a body composed largely of accountants appointed by the Minister and his hon. Friends would be asked to attempt to make a helpful study to produce the desired effect. I invite the Minister to reconsider this.
    Mr. King: There is nothing sinister about the omission of lines 40 to 44 on page 18. They become redundant because of the other amendments. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) widened the issue to cover the question of the inclusion of clause 24. It is appropriate for the audit commission to cover passenger transport executives. There is no change in our attitude.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 17, 20, 21 and 24 agreed to.
    Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    To be further considered tomorrow.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
6.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to take the two orders together.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tabled an amendment to the Secretary of State's proposed motion. May I ask your guidance on whether the amendment is to be called or whether it is in order to discuss it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I apologise. I should have told the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the hon. Member's amendment; he may refer to the general matter but not speak to the amendment.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not generally known to be awkward on such an occasion, but the intention was that I should deal with the first order and my deputy would deal with the second. I should prefer to proceed that way. We are debating a change of policy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take the two orders together only if the House unanimously agrees, and it seems that is not so.
Mr. Prior: I believe that progress on the political front has an important contribution to make in diminishing the tensions in Northern Ireland on which the terrorists feed. They do not want greater stability and will try to obstruct progress towards it. We must maintain our relentless pressure on their criminal activities. It is in that spirit that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act has to be renewed, and I invite the House to do so now.
I start by expressing the House's and country's gratitude to, and praise for, the courageous men and women under the command of the Chief Constable and the GOC. I record our sincere sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who have died in the performance of their duty. I have in mind not only the Regular Army, the UDR and the RUC but the RUC Reserve. All of them face exceptional hazards in the course of their duties, and perhaps even more so while off duty. We appreciate and respect the courage and devotion to duty shown by them all and by their families. In the past few weeks when our minds and attention have been elsewhere, and where there has equally been a tragic loss of life, it may have been too easy to forget the number of men and women who have laid down their lives in the service of freedom in Northern Ireland.
The task of the Armed Forces—in support of the civil power—is to defend the people against the cowardly attacks of terrorists. They need special qualities of discipline and self-control in the painstaking task of supporting the police in applying the ordinary law of the land. The aim of our security policy is simply and easily stated. It is to eliminate terrorism and extend normal policing throughout Northern Ireland. That means
942
arresting offenders, bringing cogent evidence to the courts, and winning convictions in open court. That is a policeman's job.
The primary role in security policy in Northern Ireland must be for the RUC, and it is well manned and equipped to undertake it. The past 10 years have seen a steady development in its professionalism and expertise in response to the burdens that have been placed upon it. It is not a matter of numbers alone—although its strength has increased from 4,115 in 1972 to 7,511 today. This development reflects the quality of the men it is recruiting—for it is a young force—and the quality of the leadership at the top, currently in the capable hands of Sir John Hermon.
From all that I have seen, I believe that the quality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is as high as that of any police force in the British Isles, and that some of the young men going into it are of exceptional quality.
On my arrival in Northern Ireland, I was enormously impressed and reassured by the daily evidence of the close teamwork between the Chief Constable and General Sir Richard Lawson, the GOC. That continues under General Lawson's successor, and there is a profound confidence between the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland, carrying out their complementary tasks, aimed at achieving security for the people of the Province. I should like to pay a special tribute to the work of General Sir Richard Lawson, who was a fine general and did a remarkably good job in Northern Ireland.
The security we all seek in Northern Ireland is the freedom to go about our daily lives in peace, free from the threat of violent attack. That requires us to maintain and strengthen confidence throughout the whole community in the ability of the police and the courts to act impartially and fairly to enforce the law and administer justice. No one recognises more clearly than the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding that they must not only enforce the law but be seen to uphold it.
The police and the Army in Northern Ireland are frequently asked to make agonising decisions—sometimes life or death decisions—in difficult and dangerous situations. They have to do so in the knowledge that not only will they be answerable to the law for those decisions, but that an error of judgment or a rash decision on their part may exacerbate community tensions and generate support for the advocates of extremism and violence.
I can understand the frustration that leads to pressures for superficially quick and easy solutions, but we cannot flout the law we are trying to uphold. We should not ignore the results which the security forces are achieving.
During 1981, 557 people were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment and 90 of them received sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more. Up to 14 June this year, charges had been laid in respect of 384 serious terrrorist offences, 31 of which were for murder and 54 for attempted murder. That record has been matched by a slight abatement in the level of violence and fits a long-term trend that is broadly positive. But I must remind the House that 1981 was a year in which society in the Province came close to the brink. Despite all the provocations and anguish of that year, the vast majority of both sides of the community demonstrated once again their rejection of violence.
In the period up to the end of May this year there were 168 shooting incidents in the Province and 106 bomb explosions. The weight of explosives used so far this year

943
has been 5,834 lbs. Fourteen members of the security forces and 22 civilians have been killed this year, compared with 17 members of the security forces and 32 civilians in the last six months of 1981. Physical injuries during the first five months of this year have numbered 246, compared with 624 in the period from July to December last year. Large quantities of ammunition and detonators have again been found and 176 firearms have been recovered. All this reminds us—if we needed reminding—not to relax our vigilance or in any way to become complacent about the security situation. I point with caution to some improvements, but that is a dreadful toll. I know that hon. Members—particularly those with Northern Ireland seats—will be emphasing that when they speak in the debate. We need to maintain the utmost pressure on the terrorists. There can be no question, in present circumstances, of doing away with essential emergency provisions, and I ask the House to renew them, but it is right that we should look at such exceptional powers with the greatest care.
I emphasise again that the success of our security policy depends upon commanding the support of the community. The present provisions—although we have been able to drop the provision for detention—have been in force now for many years. In 1975, Lord Gardiner conducted a review of the Act as it was then, and the resulting arrangements are now incorporated in the present Act, but I believe that our debates on renewal of the Act should be informed by a further independent review.
As I have explained, I do not think that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that any hon. Member could argue that emergency provisions are no longer required. But there should be a review that will enable this House to take a balanced judgment on whether each provision of the Act is still strictly necessary and whether any provisions need specific amendments. In any event, it is right for the House, in dealing with Acts of this nature, to have reviews from time to time. These are serious matters and it is in the interests of those of us who believe that the Act is absolutely essential that we should still carry the conviction of the House and of the country by being prepared to submit the Act to periodic reviews.
At this point it would be appropriate if I mentioned the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and his hon. Friends. I shall make known to this House the terms of reference of the review and its composition in due course. Given the nature of the subject, I intend that a senior legal figure should take a leading part in it, but I am not in a position to discuss particular names this evening. That may go some way to meet the hon. Gentlemen, but it would be unrealistic to adopt their timetable of six months.
The review of the Emergency Provisions Act must be related to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to the conclusions that will result from Lord Jellicoe's review of the latter Act. The purpose of the review that I shall set up will be to check that the additional powers given to the security forces in Northern Ireland to protect persons and property against terrorists are still serving their purpose effectively, but with the minimum impact on the ordinary civil liberties of the subject. There will be no unnecessary delay in the conduct of either review, but the process cannot be hurried unreasonably.
I understand that Lord Jellicoe is unlikely to be able to report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before the end of this year, and I would expect those reviewing
944
the Emergency Provisions Act to find that some aspects of their work really cannot be brought to a conclusion before the outcome of Lord Jellicoe's review is known, because the relationship between some parts of the two Acts and the way they are used by the security forces in Northern Ireland means that they must be considered together.
I realise that hon. Gentlemen are asking for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act to be completed before its next renewal date in December. I am afraid that there are cogent practical reasons why that cannot be done.
I have been extremely impressed by the thoroughness with which Lord Jellicoe is undertaking his task. He has been in Northern Ireland for three days this week, or during the course of the weekend, apart from his previous visit, and I believe that he is going back again.
For the present, I must say frankly that the security situation does not permit me to recommend that any elements of the Emergency Provisions Act should be allowed to lapse—and when we are renewing the Act, the question of amendment cannot arise. I hope that the House welcomes my intention to arrange a thorough and independent review of the Act's effectiveness. We all look forward to the day when such provisions are not required, but that day is not yet.
I know that a number of matters will be raised during the debate, because there are various conflicting points of view in the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State say when he thinks his review will commence?
Mr. Prior: I do not want to be specific, but I imagine that it will commence some time in the early autumn. That would enable the review to be well under way by the time Lord Jellicoe is in a position to report, and the findings of that report could be taken into account before the final decisions are taken on the review that I have announced. So I expect to set up the review in September or October.
Mr. Reginald Freeson: If the Secretary of State cannot give us details of the remit and terms of reference at this stage, and will report to us later, according to what he said earlier, will he tell us now, in general terms, whether the way in which Lord Jellicoe is conducting his review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act will be emulated in this further review? He is receiving evidence and making inquiries from a variety of sources, not simply the authorities in Northern Ireland or here. Will the review of the emergency provisions legislation follow similar lines?
Mr. Prior: I cannot commit anyone who is undertaking a review, but I hope that the person whom we are likely to appoint—I have no idea yet who it will be—will carry out a very full review. We have nothing to hide. I want a proper review. Therefore, I shall expect the person to carry it out in exactly the same way as Lord Jellicoe set about his task. Anything less than that would not he worthwhile.
Mr. Stallard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did I understand him to say that he would not recommend any changes in the Act as a result of the review?
Mr. Prior: I said that I could not recommend any changes tonight. It would be entirely a matter for the House of Commons and the Government to consider, once the review has taken place and once we know what the

945
review contains. All I am saying now is that at this stage the Act should be renewed. In my opinion, that is essential. There are different views in the House of Commons, and I try to meet those views, because I recognise the anxiety, on perfectly reasonable and libertarian grounds, that the House should not go on passing legislation year after year without reviews to see whether the powers are absolutely necessary. The defeat of terrorism is of the utmost importance, and we need the powers if we are to make the maximum effort. Nothing can be done at this stage, other than the review that I have promised, to change in any way the effectiveness of the Act.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and I am entirely satisfied with the review that is to be set up and its time scale. However, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is likely that the terms of reference will be similar to those of the Gardiner review in 1975?
Mr. Prior: I have come to no firm decisions about the terms of reference, but I have no reason to believe that they would be different from those for Lord Gardiner. However, I should like to consider the matter, and perhaps my hon. Friend will say a word on that subject when he replies to the debate.
In conclusion, I know that there are different views in the House about the way in which the Act is operated and about some of the activities that we consider are necessary if we are to defeat the activities of terrorists and to keep order and discipline in Northern Ireland. I have complete confidence in the police and the security forces. I talk to them constantly. I try to put a political impact into their activities, and accept their professionalism in carrying out their duties. I am always willing to report to the House on the occasions when a problem arouses anxiety in the House. For the moment I have announced the review, and I have told the House when I think that it will take place. It is on that basis that I invite the House to renew the Act's provisions and those in the interim period extension order.
7.17 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: May I say, first, that the House now regards—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but some hon. Members were not present when I announced that the two orders were being taken separately.
Mr. Concannon: I think that the House now realises the wisdom of my request that we should take the two orders separately. I understood from the answer to my written question of 26 May that the Secretary of State would set up an independent review of the operations of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Basically, I wanted two separate debates, so that the House could apply its mind to the emergency provisions, and then debate the other order later.
I agree with the Secretary of State's praise of the security forces and many other people in Northern Ireland, including those who go about their everyday business, for their efforts to keep the Province in as good order as possible. I agree, too, with what he said about the achievements of all the security forces and not just of the
946
Armed Forces in their efforts in that country. This worried me somewhat in the context of what has happened in the Falkland Islands. I do not want what I say to be taken as a slight on the troops or anything that happened in the Falkland Islands. Our forces did exceptionally well when they were called upon to go into action. It is, however, my hope that our forces involved in the long grind in Northern Ireland will not be forgotten. I should like to think that the expressions sent to our forces in the South Atlantic apply equally to those serving in Northern Ireland.
This is the fifth time that the Opposition have asked for a review of the workings of the Act. This is Labour Party policy. I shall, however, resist the natural temptation to make that request again now. We consider the Government's decision to be wise and a victory for common sense. It is common sense in terms of justice and is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I should like to thank the Secretary of State for responding to the propositions that we have put to him in previous debates. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will be able to say something about the remit. I should be happy if it was basically the same as that which led to the Gardiner report. If that happened, the problems mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) would disappear.
I would expect the review to be conducted with the same thoroughness as that in which Lord Jellicoe is involved. I would not like matters to be rushed. As one of the recipients of the Gardiner report, I know how long it took and how thorough it was. I know that we as Ministers looked forward to it to help us to sort out what had become obnoxious or no longer relevant. I hope that this review will be equally useful in respect of law that has been on the statute book for nearly a decade.
I accept the Secretary of State's point that legislation such as this should perhaps undergo periodic review. Hon. Members review these matters every six months when they have to be renewed, but there is need for wider experience and expertise to be applied to this task. We have long had reason to believe that the emergency powers of arrest, interrogation and trial encompassed in the Diplock process are a continuing source of grievance and friction. These powers suspend the normal course of common law for those accused or suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. They impinge on fundamental civil liberties and on the legal rights of many not involved in terrorist activities. Where such unusual and overbearing powers are adopted by the State, it should always be the duty of the State, through the Government, to justify the continuation of such powers and processes. We see the review announced by the Secretary of State in that light. It is overdue but still welcome.
The Opposition have put the case for an inquiry over the past two years only to be told by successive Ministers that the six-monthly renewal debate in Parliament, coupled with the Government's monitoring of the situation, is adequate for review purposes. We have often argued that such a state of affairs is not enough. The emergency provisions legislation is complex and extraordinary. To be properly justified in renewing it twice a year we need thorough information to ensure that the powers that it contains are being used for the purposes intended by Parliament. We also need to know whether all the powers are still necessary to cope with changed

947
circumstances. If a certain power is no longer necessary, it should be done away with immediately and we should revert to normal common law processes.
Lord Gardiner's report said about the temporary nature of the Emergency Provisions Act:
"Emergency powers should be limited in both scope and duration".
Later, in paragraph 21, 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."
The Opposition hope that the forthcoming inquiry will adopt its brief in the spirit of the Gardiner report. My copy of the Labour Party policy document is becoming quite battered—[Interruption.]—but only through use. I am gradually reading its contents into Hansard. On page 12, the document says:
"Our aim is to achieve a reasonable balance between the maintenance of law and order and the protection of civil rights. There is, in our view, a strong case for fundamental review of the operation of the Act with a view to changing some of its operations and to provide for its ultimate replacement. We therefore recommend that the next Labour Government carries out such a review and legislates accordingly."
On page 30, the document states:
"We recommend that the review of the Act be given high priority."
In the short time that has to elapse before the Labour Party takes office a thorough review will be taking place for which we can thank a change of mind by the Secretary of State.
It is not for the Opposition to tell the inquiry how to conduct its review of the Act. There are, however, areas of concern that we believe should be examined in detail. They have already been referred to by Opposition Members, by the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It would be most helpful to have an independent assessment of the need for section 11 of the Act which enables the police to arrest anyone whom they suspect of being a terrorist.
It would appear that there is no need for the police actually to suspect a person of involvement in an offence in order to make a valid arrest under section 11. An arrest can be made simply as a first step in the investigation into whether an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism. We need to know how essential is this power of arrest in present circumstances and also how many arrests made under section 11 could be made under common law powers. We need to guard against extraordinary powers being used as though they had become normal police work.
Another area where we would value independent adjudication concerns the powers of detection and interrogation accorded to the police under this Act. It would be helpful to know whether the power to detain suspects for three days is essential and whether the same number of confessions and convictions would not be forthcoming if the detention period before charging was shortened. The rule on admissibility of confessions under this legislation has given rise to much controversy. It is an area that should concern all hon. Members. We must always endeavour to ensure that no confession is given out of fear of prejudice or as a result of some hope of advantage held out by a person in authority.
Section 8(2) may not fully protect the accused. There is a strong case, acknowledged in the House in previous
948
debates, for the wording of this section to be tightened. Many would argue that the major feature of the Emergency Provisions Act is that it permits one-judge, no-jury courts to deal with terrorist offences. On this matter, paragraph 26 of the Gardiner report reads:
"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."
The report concluded that no change should be made in this area but the time might now be ripe to have a panel of lay assessors or a group of three judges sitting together.
It is now eight years since we had a thorough independent assessment of the relative necessity for no-jury courts. Undoubtedly the situation has changed in that time. The House may wish to consider amending such an exceptional and draconian judicial method. Labour's policy document says on page 21 about the Diplock courts that
"we do not see any prospect of a return to ordinary trial by jury, so long as paramilitary and terrorist activity continues on the present scale, and witnesses and jury members are subject to intimidation and violence."
I should like to stress the frequency of intimidation and violence for the benefit of those who are not familiar with it. During the debate on the Emergency Provisions Act on 2 July 1981 I quoted paragraph 27 of the Gardiner report. It said:
"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."
Perhaps the Secretary of State could update that information. Is intimidation still that rife? Judging by recent events, it is. Nevertheless, it would be worth the Minister stating the figures again. The period covered by the Gardiner report was only nine months, yet there were 482 instances of intimidation, threats and coercion that stopped witnesses going to court.
One way to return to jury trial would be to deschedule some offences that are now referred to Diplock courts. One yardstick that has been suggested is that of the five-year sentence. I shall look forward to the review making some recommendations on that matter. It is hard to imagine that all the present scheduled offences are committed with the aims of terrorism in mind. That may have been the case when the provisions were first placed on the statute book, but it is hard to believe that now.
We must guard against extraordinary judicial processes being applied to those who are accused of committing crimes that have no terrorist or political motive. We should take care not to include what we used to call the ODC—the ordinary decent criminal. We used that phrase to separate such people from terrorists. When such people are regularly charged under emergency provision, those provisions become sucked into the system. That is a dangerous path to tread.
The Opposition hope that those matters will be considered by the review. Expert though Parliament may claim to be on many subjects, there are times when we should take note of an independent assessment of how legislation operates on a day-to-day basis. The last Labour Administration were grateful for the Gardiner report and we acted upon much of it, especially with regard to

949
emergency legislation. It would be no bad thing if emergency legislation that affected both the mainland and Northern Ireland were reviewed regularly.
The Opposition have spent much time and energy during the past two years persuading the Government to set up the inquiry. We make no complaint about that. Such is the role of an Opposition. As the apparent need for this legislation extends beyond the first decade, there is a need for it to be reviewed more regularly. We welcome the Government's decision to set up the inquiry. We sincerely hope that the House will know its findings as soon as is practicable. I should not like to specify a time; I want the review to be thorough.
Although the Opposition will not divide the House on the present extension, when the next review arrives we shall require an updating of the review and of its character. If we wish to add to the review, I hope that as individuals and as the Labour Party we and other organisations will explore the matter, as is now being done under the Jellicoe review. I hope that the review will guide the House and that the Government will explain their reasons for accepting or rejecting it. I am aware of the difficulties involved, but I hope that we shall have a good debate and come to a conclusion.
The Opposition will not divide the House on the order. My party's policy is that, unfortunate though the emergency provisions are, they are still necessary. We are thankful that the Secretary of State has seen fit to afford us the review. We look forward to dealing with it as soon as possible.
7.35 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who always speaks on matters of security with knowledge, wisdom and patriotism. We are all glad to hear from him that the Opposition will not divide the House on the motion. There should be the utmost national unity when we are dealing with a national emergency.
This is a melancholy occasion. These debates come round year after year. The emergency that requires the powers has lasted longer than both world wars put together. Perhaps I may link the present debate with a previous one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the introduction of a political impact to the security effort. It has been the conviction of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that half the battle against terrorism will have been won when the Union has been placed beyond doubt and the terrorists know that success cannot be achieved because the will of the people of Northern Ireland will be honoured and maintained.
I deplore the necessity for the powers. I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we should be jealous of entrusting the Executive with such powers. That is why I welcome the review. We must not take it for granted that the powers must remain in their present form all the time. We must ensure that they are not kept for a minute longer than is necessary, but who can doubt that without the powers few terrorists would be convicted?
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is in use on both sides of the water, is also important. Those measures contain powers that we reluctantly give to the Government. They are hateful powers, but they are
950
necessary and the infringement of the liberties of some is sometimes the price that must be paid for the lives of many.
In one of yesterday's debates, I alluded to border security in county Fermanagh and county Armagh. We shall not hear anything about the security of county Fermanagh from the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron).
That constituency is virtually disenfranchised. Its Member of Parliament makes speeches extolling the armed struggle of the Republican movement. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), will seek to catch the eye of the Chair as in him all the people of that constituency, Protestant and Catholic, have a champion and one who shares their dangers. I recall, sometimes with a shudder, the calm manner in which he put me into his motor car one sunny Sunday afternoon and said "We are going to Crossmaglen", and we did.
I referred yesterday to some disturbing reports about the border, particularly in Fermanagh and Armagh, and I quoted my noble Friend Lord Brookeborough. I drew attention to the removal of Gardai manning the border posts and their transfer to Dublin to combat the wave of violent crime that afflicts that city and the robberies and assaults that are unfortunately commonplace in the capital of the Republic.
I also quoted my favourite Ulster newspaper, the Impartial Reporter & Farmers' Journal, which circulates on both sides of the border. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not approve of it, but it gives a very fair crack of the whip to all opinions and all sections of the community. In its leading article on 24 June, it said:
"It is clear for anyone who crosses the border from Fermanagh to see that the permanent army Gardai posts have been removed completely. However, at other checkpoints they have been maintained."
As we do not receive any reports from the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who represents that area, I have tried to inform myself about the situation. I gather that it is not now so bad as was portrayed in that editorial and that either there was no movement of police to the extent that was reported or there has been a return of Gardai to the border areas facing county Fermanagh and county Armagh. That is a relief, because it was disturbing to hear of any lessening of co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana, as one of the cheering aspects of this gloomy situation has been the excellent relations between them. That, of course, is much to the credit of Sir John Hermon to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid tribute, but also to the Commissioner in Dublin.
We do not have extradition. We have only a second-best extradition through the criminal justice legislation passed by this Parliament and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act passed by the other Parliament. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the working of that legislation as I understand that there is some slightly more cheering news in that regard. There is also a very important case before the courts in the Republic which may have a helpful bearing on the working of that legislation—in the absence of the extradition that we should have if only the Republic were governed by men who had, perhaps, the strength to implement the international obligations of their country.

951
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said yesterday:
"We tend to refer only to the Provisional IRA. We forget that there are paramilitary groups on both sides. They are both responsible for a terrifying number of deaths and acts of destruction. To fail to notice that is to demonstrate unacceptable partisanship."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 758–9.]
I was rather surprised by those words as it has not been my impression that Unionists, and certainly not Conservatives and Unionists in this Parliament, have been slow to condemn the vile deeds of those who do them under the cloak of the Union Flag. There has been no disposition to refrain from condemning such people. I remember my own words at the time of the murder of the show band people from south of the border. In so many cases, Unionists in the Province have denounced the foul deeds of paramilitary organisations which claim and disgrace the name of loyalism.
As the Catholic grandson of a Presbyterian in the constituency now represented by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I venture to quote a few words from a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland a few days ago:
"Those who take the law into their own hands, whether in a self-chosen campaign of terrorism by the Provisional IRA and other illegal organisations or in self-appointed counter-terrorist organisations like the Third Force, with its death threats against those who attack members of the Protestant community, however justified the frustration and dissatisfaction with the Government's policy of dealing with the IRA, or in so-called punishment shootings of any kind, are public enemies without regard to civil or human rights, to be repudiated and brought to justice by all who seek the peace of this Province, nation and land".
I hope that the House will forgive my quoting those words, but what I wanted to say has been put so much better in that resolution of the Presbyterian General Assembly.
The Presbyterian General Assembly also paid tribute to the RUC, as we would all wish to do, congratulating it on attaining its diamond jubilee and expressing appreciation of
"all that it had done to promote better community relations and to protect all, irrespective of creed or party, who are threatened by terrorist attack".
The resolution commends the RUC for
"the strength and courage shown in the face of vilification, provocation and violence to which they have so often been subjected".
That comes from a Church not many of whose members, I believe, support the Republican cause, whatever the Presbyterians may have done at the end of the eighteenth century. I only wish that words like that could also come, perhaps, from the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
When we pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary we should add our thanks to the other branches of the security forces—the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whose members have suffered so cruelly over recent months. They have been picked off in their homes and at their places of work. We mourn those who have died in the South Atlantic and we think of the bereaved and those who have suffered. But in sheer numbers that is almost nothing compared with the toll taken, not in defence of a distant British territory, but of part of our homeland across that narrow strip of sea.
7.50 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: I have been a Member of the House for eight and a half years. In
952
common with many hon. Members present tonight I have regularly participated in this renewal ritual. From time to time I have tried to inject life into the debate by displaying the emotions and the anger that daily I live with. It has been suggested that if I endeavoured to stay cool that would shatter some people. However, I doubt whether it is possible for me to stay cool in view of the security situation in Northern Ireland, let alone in my constituency.
I hope that those who question the need for this legislation will remember the statistics. In six months there have been 168 shootings, 106 explosions using over 5,000 lbs. of explosive, and 36 people have been murdered. That is equivalent to 1,500 being murdered in Great Britain during the first six months of this year.
I was in the House when, as a result of about 24 people being killed, legislation was put through within 24 hours. That legislation put to shame some of the other legislation on Northern Ireland at that time. I hope that hon. Members who question the need for this legislation will remember that. Those same hon. Members might also suggest other means of doing what the Secretary of State stated was his intention—to guarantee people the right to freedom and life as they go about their daily business.
I make no apology for the emotion and anger that I have expressed in our debates. I want to put flesh and blood on the statistics because it is important that hon. Members should understand what we in the Province have experienced.
It has been a good six months in County Armagh. Only four of my constituents have been murdered. I shall tell the House something about them. The first was a young man called Seamus Morgan. He was from Dungannon and the Roman Catholic father of four children. The IRA dumped him outside Fork Hill. They interrogated him, decided that he was an informer and punished him accordingly. He left a widow and four young children.
The second was a young man in his twenties from Bessbrook. His wife and young child accompanied him to work and as he said goodbye outside a public building in Newry a terrorist drew up on a motorbike, stepped off the motorbike, and blew the young man's brains out. He left a widow and young child, both of whom had witnessed the murder of their loved one.
The third person to be murdered was William Morrison, an innocent, 40-year-old single farmer who lived with his mother who was over 80 years old. In the early hours of the morning he had gone to fetch some milk to make breakfast for his aged mother and himself. He had never been a member of the security forces. He was gunned down with the two pails of milk in his hands. He was confronted by three freedom fighters armed with Armalite rifles. They put several bullets into him and then walked up to where he lay and finished him off. And so it goes on. Those are just three of the incidents.
Let me say something of the ragged flesh and the shattered bones. In the first six months of this year two of my constituents were left without both their legs, the last only a matter of days ago. I give these examples to the House because it is important that everyone here should bear in mind what I must bear in mind. If I ever become complacent about those statistics, or stop feeling angry or sad when I have to visit houses to say things that will console people who are inconsolable, I shall be accepting a level of violence that no other hon. Member would accept in his constituency. If that day comes, it will be time for me to quit.

953
There is a tendency for hon. Members to express horror at individual incidents or at various terrorist attacks, and then shut their minds until the next one comes along. There is a danger there for me as well. If I am preoccupied with this subject, I apologise—if that is necessary—but it is essential that I remain preoccupied and bring these matters to the attention of the House.
Unemployment, inflation, poverty and all the problems of the farming community are important issues in Northern Ireland, just as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is nothing more important than the right to life. All other issues pale into insignificance if when we go to bed at night we do not know whether we shall have another day in front of us.
The Secretary of State will remember that I brought a delegation to see him a few days ago. The members were not specially chosen. There were four men. Two of them had recently lost a brother and a third had lost his brother-in-law. They were typical members of other delegations that have come from my constituency to meet other Secretaries of State. I am now informed that some of the neighbours of those men have been warned that they are next. When I receive a message like that, what can I say? I have to tell them that there is nothing that I can do. I cannot arrange for them to have individual protection. The Government cannot do that. The members of this small community in my constituency have all the experience in the world to prove that more of their neighbours will die within the next few months.
What is the crime that these men have committed? The community has never been guilty of retaliation, and I shall give proof of that later in my speech. The community poses no threat to anyone. Its offence is that it gives its allegiance to the British Crown and that it holds a part of the frontier against a Republican enemy. That is a good enough reason for its members to be killed.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is not in the Chamber at the moment. On the last occasion that we debated these matters he said:
"I feel an increasing resentment that the English people and English Members should be involved in an internecine tribal war."—[Official Report, 15 December, 1981; Vol. 14, c. 273.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has learnt something since he began attending the debates. He was at our debate last night and here when this debate began. His statement was one of the most gross misrepresentations that I have ever heard. It displayed an appalling ignorance that I hope he is now in a position to correct.
I do not seek to convince anyone that there is no terrorism from the so-called Loyalist side of the community. I join with the hon. Member for Antrim, North, (Rev. Ian Paisley) in damning the so-called Loyalist organisation in its latest exploit of blowing up the wall of a Roman Catholic chapel. If that is all it can offer to Northern Ireland, heaven help us all. I accept that between 1972 and 1976 when law and order virtually broke down in the Province there was terrorism from the Loyalist community on a scale that almost matched Republican terrorism.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that during the past five years the level of terrorism from that side of the community has been minimal. It is certainly in single percentage figures. I wish that it were nil. Not only do I brand
954
the people concerned for the obscenity of their acts, but, in purely political terms, they give the enemies of Northern Ireland many excuses to talk about tit-for-tat in the Province. It also allows people such as the hon. Member for Cambridge, who claims to have some knowledge of the Province, to make comments such as the one to which I have already referred.
As part of the preparation of a case to the European Court of Human Rights, research was carried out for me along the border area for which I have some responsibility. It was carried out by academics and people who can substantiate their work. It showed that between 1978 and mid–1981, 69 murders were committed in the South Armagh-South Tyrone-Fermanagh area. Of the total, 51 were Protestant and 18 Roman Catholic. The most important statistic was that 67 of those 69 people were killed by the IRA. The other two were terrorists who had been apprehended in the commission of their crime.
The people about whom I am talking have not retaliated in the face of that assault or posed a threat. Their only offence is that they give their allegiance to the Crown and to this House.
What are we offered? We are offered the Northern Ireland Bill. The Secretary of State hopes that it will diminish tension. I am glad that he did not suggest that it would end terrorism or be able to cope with the terrorist campaign. I also hope that it will diminish tension, although I have certain reservations about that.
I suppose that the Bill is regarded as part of the campaign to win the confidence of the Roman Catholic community so that it will reject the men of violence. I have never believed that the whole Roman Catholic community supports the men of violence, and I believe that the people whom we are seeking to win over have already been won over. I believe, however, that there remain a substantial number of people within the 500,000-strong Roman Catholic community who offer active support to terrorists. We shall never win their hearts and minds.
The only thing of which I can be certain is that, if I am lucky enough to be here in six months time, I shall be giving the House yet another catalogue of death and violence. I do not need to guess at that fact, because that was said a few days ago by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron). At the annual Provisional Republican ceremonies commemorating Wolfe Tone at Bodenstown, County Kildare, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Our message to you is that the armed struggle of the Irish people…will continue…we shall resist to the death should it take another 25 years … The Republican movement, therefore, wishes to affirm that the armed struggle will continue because it is central to the success of the whole campaign of resistance … The IRA's military struggle was 'the only guarantee of success and it will demonstrate that there will be no compromise over our declared demands'."
A man elected to this House is saying to the murderers of Seamus Morgan, Willie Morrison and all the others "Go out and murder some more. It does not matter whether they are Catholic or Protestant. If they get in your way or if they obstruct your ultimate objective, destroy them by whatever means you can".
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the necessity for this legislation. He does not need to convince me of that, but it is not enough to say that at present there is no possibility of amending the orders. I told the right

955
hon. Gentleman six months ago that he was offering us no hope. What he said tonight offers no further hope. All I know is that this year and next I shall attend more funerals.
Let me repeat some of the suggestions that I have made in the past. I am not demanding the death penalty, although I read with interest what a senior police officer on the mainland said about politicians who voted against it but were were guarded by people who were told to shoot their assailants dead if they came anywhere within range.
What other society in Western Europe would allow a man to incite people to murder or allow a so-called political organisation, such as political Sinn Fein, to give a legitimacy to murder and murderers or to operate ticker tapes and other machinery to propagate an apology for the killers? Provisional Sinn Fein should have no resting place either in Northern Ireland or the Republic. If the Secretary of State does not want to ban provisional Sinn Fein, it should be harried and hounded from pillar to post, because there is every justification for giving that organisation no resting place.
Serious consideration should also be given to the whole issue of 50 per cent. remission. Some people may remember the killing of my constituent Margaret Hearst because the the bullet went through a Kermit frog toy that was carried by a baby beside her. She was murdered less than five years ago, yet the people involved in her murder watched her father's coffin carried down the road to be buried alongside her. The people who murdered his daughter were released in time to see that man, who was murdered by their associates, carried to his grave. That is the price of 50 per cent. remission.
If there is contrition, as there would be in most other parole systems, people should be given remission, but the 50 per cent. remission is automatic. Sentences of eight, 10, 12 or 20 years are given, yet only three, four, five, six or eight years are served. Remission should be on offer only if some contrition and regret is shown by people for the offences for which they have been found guilty.
The right to silence is taken for granted on the mainland. I am sure that mainland Members of Parliament would fight to defend the right of silence. However, given what we have heard tonight, surely people should be expected to account for their movements if they are apprehended at the scene of a murder or brought in for questioning on suspicion of being involved in the commission of a terrorist offence. What is wrong with expecting a man to clear himself if he is not guilty? Why should a person escape the rigours of the law simply by folding his arms, staring at the wall, and refusing to answer reasonable questions?
One person described to me the tactics that the terrorists use, which I shall not go into now, to avoid answering legitimate questions. Why should a person, after 12 years of the horror that I have described, refuse to clear himself of complicity, and why do we allow him to run free if he refuses to do so? I hope that this issue, which has been raised by other people, will also be considered.
Internment is not the dirty word in my mouth that it is in other people's. If by interning someone a person's life is saved, then selective internment should be introduced. Internment is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. It is used in other societies where the normal rule of law cannot cope. For two months I have had it preached to me that Northern Ireland is different. One cannot be selective in making Northern Ireland different. If it is different to
956
justify taking certain actions, then the fact that Northern Ireland is different in this respect makes it necessary to justify different actions in these circumstances.
Those are my suggestions. I have made them in the past and I am sure that they will be ignored as they have been before. I ask for my constituents that of which the Secretary of State spoke—freedom to go about their daily lives in peace, free from violent attack. One day, sooner or later, the House will have to come to terms with that. It cannot expect the people of Northern Ireland to go on enduring, year in year out, 100 or 200 people killed. It cannot say to us that one of these days it will all come right. There is no compromise with these terrorists. They cannot be placated.
I said on a previous occasion that some of the terrorists are so steeped in blood that they have probably forgotten their political objectives. They do not share the political objectives of any legitimate political party in Northern Ireland, even those who would be on their side of the fence, and I do not mean that in an offensive way. Neither do they share the political objectives of any political party in Southern Ireland. They cannot be placated. They must be defeated.
8.11 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I am pleased that he did not take the advice given by the unnamed person who suggested that he should stay cool and take everybody by surprise, because his comments, based as they are on the reality of someone who is close to terrorism and its effects, are required in the House to shake people out of their complacency. That complacency exists in this place, and it shields us from all the horror and the terror that is Northern Ireland under IRA terrorism.
The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for having to take part in this ritual once more. The very fact that we need a continuance order is an indictment of the Government and their failure to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. When there was a conflict in the South Atlantic, the Government rightly and properly acted with resolution, firmness and courage. However, when there is a conflict in Northern Ireland, which has existed for 12 or 13 years, all that we have had has been dithering from the Government and ineffective and compromising responses.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the debate of 2 July 1981, when he quoted from his own words on that occasion. I feel that it is perhaps more appropriate to quote the words of someone else who was here then but who is no longer here because the IRA terminated his life. On that occasion the Rev. Robert Bradford, the former Member for Belfast, South, when referring to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Order, said:
"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 … There is a need for the ultimate deterrent against murderers and bombers, and that is capital punishment."—[Official Report, 2 July 1981; Vol. 7, c. 1056–7.]
Sadly he will no longer take part in debates such as this. The ritual of these debates is over for him because of the failure of the Government to take effective measures against terrorism in Northern Ireland.

957
A former Minister, getting on to a plane to leave Northern Ireland in an inebriated state, is said to have determined that there would continue to be an acceptable level of violence in Northern Ireland. That seems to be the British Government's policy up to now.
In the South Atlantic the Government realised that they could deal effectively with the conflict by using strong and carefully planned measures. In Northern Ireland their policy is different. They want a levelling of the violence. They want to contain it at a level acceptable to the people over here, because people here are not affected by it in the way that the people in Northern Ireland are affected.
It is often said in Northern Ireland that the Government do not take the measures that they and we know are necessary to annihilate the terrorists because that might have its effect on this part of the United Kingdom. The Government are happy to allow the terrorism to continue at a certain level in Northern Ireland so that it does not boil over in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There is no question about the continuance order being necessary. It is more necessary today than in 1978 when the Act was passed. The Provisional IRA is the main cause of violence in Northern Ireland, although there are elements of terrorism from other parts of society that I and other hon. Members condemn and have condemned. The Provisional IRA is engaged in the most violent activity in Northern Ireland.
Those with access to intelligence from the Provisional IRA say that the IRA's personnel is larger now than ever. It sucked from the veins of the hunger strikers as much as it could. One does not get to leave the IRA once one has joined. One leaves only with kneecaps blown out or a hood over the head. All the recruits during the hunger strike period have added to the ranks.
We have gone almost the full circle in Northern Ireland. The hard-line bitter Republicans committed to prison in the late 1960s or early 1970s are coming back on to the streets. Such people reinforce the Provisional IRA ranks. The godfathers of terrorism, who keep their hands clean in law, have never been caught. The ranks are as strong as, if not stronger than, ever. The order is necessary because the IRA's manpower is greater than ever.
With some colleagues I have visited the United States of America. Other hon. Members have done that in different capacities. I am aware of the Noraid organisation, which funds the Provisional IRA to a significant extent. Not only does it send finance, but it is prepared to send weapons. When we see the weapons that did not complete their journey to Northern Ireland we wonder how many got through without the CIA, FBI or other United States organisations stopping them.
With the extortion rackets in Northern Ireland, the voluntary collections in the United States and bank robberies in Northern Ireland, the IRA's funds can always be levelled or topped up as necessary. Today the Provisional IRA is in a stronger position in regard to both manpower and financing than when the Act was introduced. Therefore, the continuance order is necessary.
There is also the problem of the Provisional IRA's weaponry. The security forces have been shot at by the most sophisticated weapons and people have been blown up by explosives emanating from Communist countries. All the weaponry and explosives that the IRA requires are available to it. Russian rocket launchers, Kalashnikov
958
rifles and the Armalite rifle that seems to be the favourite of the IRA have all been found in its possession. The Provisional IRA has its stores well placed and it has easy access from the Republic.
The cellular structure that the Provisional IRA operated was seriously damaged by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Shortly afterwards, Gerry Adams was sent to Dublin to reorganise the Provisional IRA and Seamus Twomey was brought in from the cold. Disagreements about such ideology as that organisation could ever pretend to have were patched up. Since Gerry Adams began reorganising the Provisional IRA, his position has weakened and the authority of Seamus Twomey has increased. That development might account for the resurgence of the Provisional IRA's use of car bombs in attacks in Belfast.
A new structure has been established by the Northern Ireland Provisional IRA. All the intelligence that the police gained about the old cellular structure is of little value and intelligence must be gathered again. Thus the Provisional IRA is reorganised, re-equipped and financed and it has the manpower to do the job. It also has its training camps in the Republic and, Colonel Gaddafi permitting, as he usually does, doubtless it has camps elsewhere. Compared with 1978, when the Act was put on the statute book, the Provisional IRA is at least as capable, if not more so, of carrying death and destruction to the people of Northern Ireland. Figures that the Secretary of State provided illustrate that point.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, as the Secretary of State said, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is better equipped and has more full-time officers and more full-time and part-time reservists than ever before? It is very well equipped to meet the IRA threat.
Rev. Ian Paisley: What about arms from the United States?
Mr. Robinson: The Minister is right in saying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is better equipped, but unfortunately it is not always given the full weaponry that it requires because of the United States' ban on providing certain weapons which we discussed in the United States.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the hon. Gentleman enlarge on a report that on a recent occasion, when there was the possibility of riots, the RUC was told "Just use two blanks and do nothing else"?
Mr. Robinson: That is a very serious matter. I also remember an occasion when there was rioting in West Belfast and the RUC ran out of baton rounds. Breakdowns in the system can occur. I accept that the RUC is well equipped. The argument of Unionist politicians has never been about the capability of the RUC to do the job, but about the directives to those in the RUC who are responsible for carrying out that job.
When the Minister talks about the RUC, the UDR and others he should also look to the protection of the men who are doing that job. Too often, police reservists and UDR men tell me that, even though their lives have been threatened, their application for a personal weapon has been turned down by the authorities.
A member of the UDR was twice followed to work. He notified the police that he was being followed by someone whom he believed was a member of the Provisional IRA.

959
The police followed the man who was tailing my constituent and established that there was a threat, but when my constituent requested a personal firearm his request was refused and his commanding officer handed him a piece of paper that I have with me. It reads:
"From the commanding officer. Personal security. Are you keen to stay alive? If so read on! The Enemy. Provisional IRA and INLA are looking for targets. They are on the hunt. They have been amazed at how insecure many of you are. So what are you doing about this problem?"
The paper helpfully lists a number of actions that ought to be taken to improve personal security and ends:
"Keeping a dog with a bark."
That advice was given to a man who had been followed by the Provisional IRA. He was a target and had asked for a gun to defend himself. He was advised to get a dog that barked. How ridiculous can you get!
The Government should be prepared to give security to those who are putting their lives on the line while defending us. It is amazing how many people who are pillars of society and are in danger of being attacked have had applications for personal weapons turned down by the authorities.
The Provisional IRA is as strong as ever and there is no reason why the Act should not be continued. However, the Act will do nothing to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. If it were going to do anything, it would have done so in the many years that it has been in operation. It must be accompanied by a strong and resolute military initiative.
I hesitate to stand on the corns of those who believe that a political initiative will solve all Northern Ireland's problems, but history argues against them. We have had political initiatives which should have been to the liking of any Republicans, because they gave them more than any democratic society should have given them, but they did not stop the Provisional IRA.
The hon. Member for Armagh read out the words of Owen Carron—I cannot call him the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The Provisional IRA is continuing its struggle to achieve its aims—whatever sort of Ireland would result from that.
Northern Ireland Ministers will have to add to the continuance of the Act a strong and resolute security initiative. The late Rev. Robert Bradford suggested that the courts should have tougher sentences, including capital punishment, available to them. I know that we are supposed to be sensitive about criticising judges and magistrates, but it is surely an indictment of our courts that people who have been found guilty of terrorist crimes, including murder and attempted murder, have walked from the court room with non-custodial sentences. What faith can the people of Northern Ireland have in our legal system?
About three-quarters of those who are found guilty of membership of the Provisional IRA are allowed to walk free. The charge of membership of an illegal organisation is generally used when the RUC knows that the person concerned is guilty of much more, but cannot get the evidence to prove it. The police can prove that he is a member of the Provisional IRA or the INLA, but three-quarters of those who are found guilty of membership of those organisations that are killing my fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are given non-custodial sentences. Either we are at war with the Provisional IRA, or we are not. If we are—I believe that we should be—we cannot afford to allow its members to walk out of the courts after being
960
found guilty. Tougher sentences must be mandatory and, at least, minimum sentences must be available to the courts.
There should be an immediate review of the yellow card, the consultation that is required of members of the security forces before they can fire on people who have guns in their hands. The security forces must be given the absolute right to defend themselves in such circumstances without their having to consult and worry about the regulations on a yellow card. The Provisional IRA has all the advantages in this type of urban, guerrilla terrorist war. Everything is on its side because members of the IRA can lie in wait and fire on a passing patrol or blow them up. They can plan their operations and decide when and where they will launch their attack.
Under the present security policy our security forces have to react to whatever the IRA do. The hon. Member for Armagh referred to hunting and harrying. That is what should be done. The security forces should be on the offensive. The Provisional IRA should not know when next it will find the security forces coming through the door of its headquarters. We know where the Provisional IRA is based in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. People are well aware of IRA routes across the border. There should be tighter border security and search and seizure operations in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. While that may seem draconian to some hon. Members, I can assure them that if they had visited as many homes and had seen as many widows and orphans as I have they would be prepared to take that type of measure to save having to visit any more.
After 2,300 people have been killed, more than 25,000 maimed and mutilated and millions of pounds lost as a result of IRA subversion and terrorism, the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members from Northern Ireland are asking "How many more will die, how many more will be maimed and how much more will be lost by way of finance before we debate this matter again"?
8.32 pm
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have not frequently taken part in the debates on the continuation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and, therefore, it is not for me a ritual occasion. No one could listen to the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—that might not be the appropriate parliamentary phrase to use—and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) without being conscious that time and again they face up to the tragic consequences of terrorism in Northern Ireland. No one could listen to what the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh said about his constituents and his obligation to visit widows and to attend funerals without feeling profoundly moved. Yet, in a sense, there is a more agonising dilemma facing the House that has not so far emerged in this debate.
Terrorists win their objectives in two ways. One is by destroying their enemies. The second is by destroying the very structure of law which democracy exists to defend. Therefore, it is right for the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) to stress that we, as a House of Commons in a parliamentary democracy, should perpetually review any legislation which in essence is hostile and alien to that democracy. If we do not do so, we shall allow the terrorists to win by the back door what they have not gained by the front door. That is the essential dilemma that any democratic Government attempting to

961
administer Northern Ireland are bound to have to face. It is not a unique situation for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not as much a different place as perhaps has been suggested in debates over the past few weeks.
Northern Ireland shares with Italy, Spain and other democratic countries in Western Europe the same awful dilemma of facing a terrorist challenge to democracy. To destroy democracy in the name of destroying terrorism is to allow terrorists to win the final victory. If Italian judges die at the hands of the Red Brigades because they are left vulnerable to terrorism by the democratic system, if a Spanish ETA terrorist blows up the forces of law and order, those countries share with Northern Ireland the attempt to try to sustain democratic institutions. They know that that requires courage and determination and that at the end of the day not to sustain those institutions is to have been defeated in the most complete sense.
Those of us from the mainland who insist that we must investigate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has correctly described as "hateful legislation" must do so with an awareness of the suffering and sacrifice that we are asking the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, to sustain in the name of democracy. Any other response would seem to suggest that we do not care about the long succession of death, suffering and injury that the people of Northern Ireland have to bear.
We are therefore right to say that the Secretary of State should inquire into the necessity for legislation that is repellent to the democratic principle. If it must be extended every six months, for example, so be it, but it must be justified, because the onus of proof in a democracy has to lie with those who remove some part of the safeguards from individual liberties and from the right of our citizens to trial by jury.
The Secretary of State has done the right thing in establishing a review seven years after the previous review took place under Lord Chancellor Gardiner. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Mansfield, who has pressed consistently for an independent review. He is right to do so. He is, in so doing, defending the institutions of democracy. It was right for the Secretary of State to concede that a review should take place. I hope that it will be conducted in as open a way as is compatible with the overriding requirements of security in the Province of Northern Ireland. I hope also that it will be possible for people to submit their views to the judicial review, because that will strengthen the United Kingdom's argument before the bar of world opinion.
The House must not forget that we must do more than prove the case to ourselves. We must prove it also to those who wish all too often to show that what Britain is undertaking in Northern Ireland is wrong and is intended to destroy the rights of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the assistance that terrorism has received from across the Atlantic from democracies, in which some people wrongly believe that they are fighting for liberty when they put their money into the collecting plates. We must show decisively that they are not.
The last part of what I want to say comes down to the details of the Emergency Provisions Act. There are three aspects to which I wish to refer because I suspect that the judicial review will take note of what is said in the House
962
in this debate and earlier debates. Therefore, it is important that we should not regard this occasion simply as one to reiterate our past well-known views without drawing attention to the matters that we hope the review will take seriously into account.
The first aspect is the Diplock courts. As recently as the day before yesterday in The Irish Times a review was reported which showed that only 6 per cent. of the people who were polled in the Roman Catholic districts of Derry and Belfast and only 23 per cent. of Protestants in equivalent areas of Belfast believed that it was possible to get a fair trial under the Diplock courts.
I cannot say how accurate that poll was, but I believe that it raises considerable questions about the amount of confidence the people of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, place in the system of a single judge. Therefore, the case for sustaining the Diplock courts without any of the changes that the right hon. Member for Mansfield and others have suggested must be proven before the judicial review and not taken for granted.
The second issue is section 2(2) of the Emergency Provisions Act which relates to bail. As the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland said only a few days ago, it is almost impossible to get bail under those provisions. In a democracy, to make bail almost impossible to get is such a disastrously bad principle that again the House must be convinced by the review that it is absolutely essential to make no changes in section 2 of the Emergency Provisions Act.
The third and final aspect that I want to touch upon—in some ways in respect of this country's international status the single most disturbing one—and to which the right hon. Member for Mansfield referred, is the way in which confessions appear before the courts and the fact that the conditions that apply to them are much more narrowed and straitened than in the courts on the mainland. We know that "inhumane or degrading treatment" is now a reason for rejecting a confession. We also know that that is a much narrower phrase than the phrases that would normally rule out a confession in any other British court. Because intimidation can be alleged—it is often alleged—and it can be argued that confessions have been obtained by improper means, by threats of violence or the use of violence, we are in a peculiarly sensitive and fragile area.
A democracy has to make out the strongest arguments for accepting confessions that may be obtained by improper use of the forces of law and order. Therefore, once again we are entitled to ask the Government, in the course of the judicial review, to make absolutely certain that confessions that may be obtained in ways that go beyond what would otherwise be acceptable in a democratic court of law meet the onus of proof.
I believe that it would be wrong to allow the debate to pass without saying as strongly as possible that emergency legislation sustained year after year until it becomes almost a habit of mind is one of the most significantly dangerous things that can happen to a democracy. If it were not necessary—I am not suggesting that at the moment—or if it were to be sustained for one day longer than necessary, the terrorists would have obtained the goals that they seek.
8.45 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), but I wonder why she said nothing about

963
the courts in Southern Ireland, which do not have the panoply of justice that is found on this side of the Irish Sea; yet the Republic is a democracy and no one suggests that its democracy is weakened by the fact that it has had to use exceptional means to deal with an exceptional circumstance. Misunderstood outside the Chamber, the right hon. Lady's comments might lead someone to suppose that the review has been forced on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because so many people have stated their misgivings about the way that the Diplock courts operate. If the right hon. Lady has evidence, she owed it to the House to bring it before us tonight. Otherwise, her speech may be misinterpreted. Far from helping the cause of democracy and the defeat of terrorism, she may have aided and abetted the latter most awful scourge.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In Dublin the only proof needed is a single police officer stating that he believes that an individual belongs to an outlawed organisation.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: That underlines my point. The right hon. Lady should make her strictures north and south of the border if she wishes to be fair.
I welcome the order because the situation in Northern Ireland has not yet reached the stage where we can see the end of the emergency provisions. I also welcome the suggestion of a review. The review must satisfy all hon. Members that circumstances have changed so markedly in the Province that there is a need to change the law. Only then will it have a useful function.
Almost in his first words my right hon. Friend referred to progress on the political front. He placed considerable emphasis on the need for that progress if we are to deal with the security problem not only with the force of law and with the security forces but with the support of the community. I submit that political progress must mean a willingness by local politicians across the community divide to seek for and to support policies that will enable everyone in the Province to believe that they are being governed fairly and that their reasonable aspirations are being given proper expression.
By the end of the year it is likely that Northern Ireland will have a local Assembly. Its success will depend on the willingness of all its Members to give physical expression to those two aspirations and to do so accepting that the present borders of Northern Ireland are a physical statement of the wish of the majority of the people living there to live as part of the United Kingdom rather than as part of the Republic.
The wish of the majority—and their democratic right to self-determination—must be sustained by law and by the forces of law and order when there are those who would coerce them by force of arms into a political union against their wishes. That law must be one that can be implemented bearing in mind the circumstances in which it is enacted.
When we think of Northern Ireland, or even of Southern Ireland, the word "intimidation" springs straight to mind. For anyone to imagine that intimidation is not part and parcel of the daly existence of people in Northern Ireland is to know very little about the state of the Province and what is going on there. That is the background to the review, as is the roll-call of the murdered and the wounded, the shootings and the bombings which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the House in his speech.
964
I do not believe that there would be much disagreement with any of my remarks by any fair-minded politicians, whether in London, Belfast or Dublin, but, if I say that, I find myself hoping that Dublin at least will give rather more indication of its willingness to accept the right of Northern Ireland to exist, as long as the majority of its people so wish, than seems to be the case. If Dublin has its aspiration of a united Ireland—and it is a reasonable political aspiration—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, it is not.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not. It seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any Government to have a view of where its future lies.
Mr. Powell: It is not a perfectly natural aspiration for a country to claim the territory of another country. It is not a perfectly natural aspiration for France, for example, to claim part of Germany. The hon. Member is talking nonsense.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not say "claim". I said that if the Dublin Government seek the peaceful unity of North and South—.
Mr. Powell: How can that be a reasonable aspiration?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Dublin Government seek the peaceful unity of North and South, or if the Cypriots in Greek Cyprus seek to have a unity once again with the Turkish part of Cyprus, I cannot see how that is either against the law or beyond the wishes of the people on either side of a border. If they seek that aspiration, as I suggest they do—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me— [Interruption.] I did not say "claim". If they seek to have that aspiration, it seems to me that a peaceful unity can come only out of the wishes of the people north and south of the border to be linked together.
If the Government of the South are anxious to see such unity come peacefully, then they have as much a responsibility as have those in the North to do their part in ending the blood letting which goes on, and to take action against those who, like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), advocate that the armed struggle will continue and who seek to recruit young people to become killers in the North. I hope that the report in the Belfast Telegraph suggesting that the Garda are looking at the speech in question to see whether the hon. Member can be prosecuted under the southern Government's Act on incitement is correct, and that they will take action against him, for it seems to me that he is one of those who intend to perpetrate further killings, which may mean shooting and bombing in the North.
We heard a very powerful speech from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and I am glad that I re-read his speech in last December's debate. I am glad that he repeated today several things that he said in that speech, for, like him, I find myself less and less able to understand the logic behind the 50 per cent. remission of prison sentences.
I hope that my hon. Friend, in winding up, will spend some time on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman said in December—and, I think, again tonight—effectively we may say, as my right hon. Friend said, that many people

965
have received prison sentences of 10 years or more, when we should say that they will spend only five years in prison.
If we are to make any sense of this policy, the concept of a parole board, which again the hon. Gentleman suggested last December, should be included. To give remission without any promise of good conduct seems to make nonsense of the sentence that was originally given. Why not give the man five years, and have done with it, and let him earn perhaps one-third remission, which any prisoner on this side of the Irish Sea can earn, by good conduct?
Mr. John Patten: I do not want to get into wider issues of penal policy, if only for fear of inciting the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) to intervene, because he has powerful views on the matter. I just want to clear up one misunderstanding by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), which perhaps followed the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). It is important to realise that there is no 50 per cent. remission for people who have been duly convicted of murder.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend picks out murder, but he does not say that there is no 50 per cent. remission for crimes of terrorism. If he is saying that, I hope that he will make that clear. If he is not saying that, 50 per cent. remission is available for crimes of terrorism other than murder. My case—which was made so much better by the hon. Member for Armagh—should be answered. If the argument is that there is not enough cellular accommodation to contain all those who have been convicted of crimes of terrorism, let us come clean about it, and let us build adequate prison accommodation. If we think that this 50 per cent. remission somehow softens the attitude of the terrorist to the Government of the United Kingdom, we are barking up the wrong tree.
I put this question to my hon. Friend the Minister: how many of the terrorists who are currently awaiting prosecution, or who are already in prison, are there for the second or third time round? What is the rate of recidivism among terrorists? In my opinion, that figure is central to the argument that one can release prisoners after quite short sentences and they will not go back to that form of crime.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has raised a most important aspect of sentencing for murder. Is he aware that there are two forms of sentence? First, there is the one that just says "life", and it rests with the Secretary of State on appeals, and petitions are entered. In the second, a number of years are mentioned. The Minister should clarify the matter.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for that extension of what I was saying. I hope that my hon. Friend will satisfy me and other hon. Gentlemen who have raised these matters, because the question of remission is a bone of contention, and one that now needs to be explained in greater detail than has occurred in the past.
I shall follow the hon. Member for Armagh in referring to the situation on the border. I had the rather tragic task of going to see Tynan Abbey a week after the killing of
966
Sir Norman Stronge and his son, a little more than a year ago. I had never examined the border between the North and South quite as closely as I did on that visit. Some of us imagine that the border is a clearly marked line between the North and South, so that one knows for certain which side one is on. In fact, it is an imaginary line which encircles the Six Counties. When I saw how easy it was for those who killed Sir Norman Stronge to cross from South to North, and that there was no physical obstacle of any sort in their way, I found myself wondering whether we are wise, year in, year out, to say that nothing can be done to make the border more of an obstacle to those who would cross it illegally. I can do no better than quote a leading article in the Belfast Telegraph of Monday 21 June, which said:
"The border is still of vital strategic interest, since across it flow the money, arms and often the men who carry out the violence. It cannot be sealed, but it must be patrolled, and the accusations of a slackening of security on the southern side are worrying".
They are certainly worrying while the Government in the South give the impression that terrorists will not be handed back if they escape into the Republic and are arrested. Whether the Republic knows it or not, that policy, like its unwillingness to sign the European Convention on Terrorism on the grounds, apparently spurious, if the Republic's Foreign Minister of 1977 is to be believed, that the convention is against the spirit of the constitution, has created a deep bitterness among those whose lives are in danger in the North. Because of that, the strength and effectiveness of our own security forces along the border assume an even greater importance.
In those terms, can my hon. Friend say whether station sergeants are now required to reside near their police stations when that police station is along the border and whether those stations are continuously manned by an inspector or a sergeant at all times? Those comments arise perhaps initially from what happened at Tynan Abbey. It is, however, reasonable to ask a little more about the Army-police relationship and how it is evolving throughout the Province. Can my hon. Friend say how carefully selected are local police commanders and how much training they have received in command procedures with Army units including the UDR? There is a view in some quarters in the Province that the tactical support between the RUC and the UDR is not as effective as it should be, and that the UDR is slow to respond to calls from the RUC.
Do the RUC and the UDR carry out joint exercises with the Army, particularly involving the use of helicopters? Can I be assured that the police in frontier areas have received training in how to bring a helicopter into land so that a guide can be taken on board? Can I be told that the police have all the armoured vehicles that they require? I think I am right in saying that in the Tynan Abbey incident, if both police cars had been armoured, the terrorists would almost certainly not have got away. The fact that only the first vehicle was armoured and that it was involved in a crash with the terrorists' vehicle meant that it was out of use, and the second police car, which was unarmoured, could not be used against the terrorists with their high-velocity weapons.
May I be told whether Regular Army units which are stationed along the border are kept long enough in one place to have detailed topographical and demographical knowledge of the area? The comment made to me was that

967
there was an inclination to move these units about the border area which prevented them obtaining the detailed knowledge so necessary in this kind of operation.
Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has asked some probing questions. The RUC, like the UDR and the Army generally in the Province, has all the equipment that it needs. If any request comes from the RUC, it is immediately and sympathetically considered. I can give that guarantee. I must reassure my hon. Friend that the co-operation between the RUC, both full-time reserve and part-time reserve, the UDR and other Regular Army units in the Province is at a high level. I do not think it would be possible or, indeed, wise for me to answer any of the questions that he has posed in the House. This would obtrude on matters of operational judgment that might be damaging to the security of the border areas themselves.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I recognise a portion of what my hon. Friend has said. There would be nothing against his writing to me as the point that I have made to him was put to me publicly. Some form of satisfaction might be accorded by him to me through a letter.
Mr. John Patten: I should be happy for my hon. Friend to call on me at a time that is convenient to himself to discuss these issues.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Finally, I shall return to the Army, the RUC and the UDR. If, as I have suggested, with such an open border it behoves our security forces to increase their activities on the border as much as is possible, that does not seem in any way to allow the Republic to believe that it does not have a similar responsibility. If the Republic wants to have clean hands at the end of the struggle that is now going on in the North, if it wants to have hands that are clean of the blood of the innocent people who are still being murdered, it must show that it is as willing as we are to patrol its side of the border, to carry out the same surveillance of the border that I like to think that our security forces are currently employing. Surveillance of the border will produce the intelligence about those who cross it and where they cross it that will be most valuable to the security forces who are trying to capture those who come to the North to continue the campaign of terrorism and bloodshed.
Our security forces are already doing about as much as can reasonably be expected of them. I should like the border to become more of a physical obstacle than it now is. But for the sake of good Irish relations—relations between North and South—I should like to see the South demonstrate its determination, to see that it, too, is playing the greatest possible part in defeating the terrorists who are still such a cause of anxiety in the North.
9.7 pm
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will not take it amiss if I do not follow his line of argument. His latter comments would have been more appropriate to the other debate on Northern Ireland that has been taking place recently than to an order on the renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act.
I do not dissent from what was said by the Secretary of State and endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). They spoke of the
968
continuing tragedy of Northern Ireland and the almost impossible role with which the security forces are charged. It is a heartbreaking and seemingly impossible problem.
Debates on the emergency provisions are sobering events. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and others described passionately the tragedies, violence and crimes that take place in their constituencies. If placed in those circumstances, most of us would feel much the same. It would be difficult for any of us to be objective in such circumstances. I do not want it to be thought that, because we differ in our approaches to the issue, we do not understand or do no more than sympathise.
I am only sorry that the House is never fuller on these occasions. It might do many hon. Members good to listen to the speeches that are made in these debates. It might also be good for those of us who attend these debates as often as we can and perhaps get so close to the problem that we cannot see the wood for the trees to hear some fresh views from hon. Members who do not usually contribute. Certainly I have always hoped that Northern Ireland would attract much more attention and interest in the House.
This debate takes place twice annually. Automatically, therefore, the list of crimes and violence, horrid, unacceptable and revolting though they be, must be listed yet again. It is not enough, however, simply to do that automatically and then go through the ritual of supporting the continuation of the order and remaining silent about it. That is not what we are here for and no one would thank us if we adopted that approach. As the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) said, we are bound to examine this extraordinary legislation that we are being asked to continue. We should also determine the extent to which it might be counter-productive. That is the aspect that worries many of us most of all.
After those introductory remarks, no one will be surprised to hear that I was not satisfied with the kind of inquiry proposed or indeed with the rest of the Secretary of State's remarks. I was concerned when I read the press release from the Northern Ireland Information Service on 26 May announcing the inquiry. I felt that it was not the kind of inquiry that we needed. We asked for the inquiry on five different occasions, but the inquiry outlined by the Secretary of State was not the kind of inquiry that we envisaged.
With all due respect to Lord Jellicoe, who has been put in charge of the inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I was rather worried as I felt that this inquiry—I believe that the Secretary of State himself said this—must be a judicial inquiry, for reasons that I shall explain. Such an inquiry must be conducted by someone who is much closer to the courts and the experience of the courts because of the nature of the offences and the acts to be examined.
I was also concerned about the timing when I read the press statement. This cannot be allowed to drag on and on. Five debates means that it is two and a half years since we first asked for an inquiry. One would have thought that at least some preliminary work would have been done by now and that we would be almost at the point of agreeing to the inquiry going ahead and proceeding fairly speedily.
I do not accept that this inquiry must necessarily be linked to the Jellicoe inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The two pieces of legislation are different and they operate in different parts of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Prevention of Terrorism Act operates mainly here, whereas the Emergency Provisions

969
Act operates mainly there. The latter operates mainly through the courts, while the former has a different connotation. They do not necessarily have to be linked.
Mr. John Patten: I entirely take the point that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act are separate pieces of legislation, but there is a considerable overlap. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, certainly in two of its parts, has considerable application in Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, a considerable link. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that they must be taken separately in terms of an examination into their workings.
Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is not really arguing against me. I am saying that they do not necessarily have to be taken one after the other. The two inquiries could run parallel with each other. There is nothing to suggest that we must await the outcome of Lord Jellicoe's inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act before looking at the Emergency Provisions Act. The press statement said that the timing of the inquiry into the Emergency Provisions Act would have to take into account the conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I do not accept that view, which is why I tabled the amendment, which has not been selected.
I am not dissuaded from the terms of my amendment by the Secretary of State's announcement of the kind of inquiry that he envisages, nor am I too worried about the party policy aspects mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. Frankly, I have never been too worried about party policy or any other aspects. No one can say that Labour Party policy does not give plenty of scope for interpretation. I have always exercised more scope than most, and I know that in other circumstances my right hon. Friend would perhaps do the same. I do not have to be a slave to the words of a document with which I might even agree.
Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend will accept that as a Labour Party spokesman on this subject I speak not for myself but for the Labour Party and must take into account the virtually unanimous decision taken at our last conference. I must support the Labour Party's policy document. Obviously my hon. Friend, as a Back Bencher, has much more licence, but I am sure that he will accept that I must pursue party policy as enunciated at our conference.
Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention, but I shall get into difficulty if I take the argument too far. That conference decision did not necessarily discuss the policy in relation to the Emergency Provisions Act by itself. It spoke of "a fundamental review". I could interpret the word "fundamental" for the next three or four hours, and I am not a lawyer. I do not think that my amendment is outside the strict interpretation of party policy that was so ably advanced by my right hon. Friend. I certainly accept his stricture that he must speak for the party. That is fair enough. However, I do not necessarily have to accept every jot or tittle of that document.
Nothing that I have heard so far has dissuaded me from the sentiments expressed in my amendment, and I shall attempt to justify the kind of review that I believe to be
970
necessary. The Act was first introduced in 1973. It was amended in 1975 and 1977 to incorporate other emergency powers provisions, and it became the 1978 Act. It was originally the product of the Diplock report, and we all remember how controversial that report was at the outset. It was never accepted that it would stand the test of all time. The report remains controversial. It is probably even more controversial now that we have had experience of it on both sides of the Irish Sea. That must be taken into account.
The last inquiry into the operation was conducted by a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. That begins to put into our minds the need for the judicial aspect of the inquiry. It was felt then, rightly, that we should put a Lord Chancellor, or somebody with that kind of experience, in charge. The Committee reported in January 1975, over seven years ago. Thus, it has been more than seven years since the last review.
We know that there is a growing demand in Northern Ireland, as well as here, for a fresh investigation into the operation of the Act, taking particular account of the effectiveness of the recommendations of the Bennett committee on interrogation methods, which reported in 1979, and the possibility of allowing part or all of the Act to lapse as part of the process of normalisation.
Like everbody else, I have been concerned only with the creation of some atmosphere in the Six Counties that would allow both communities to be reconciled. I have always wanted reconciliation. However difficult it may be, that must be the immediate target. If something is counter-productive and is causing problems, we must remove it if it is an obstacle in the way of reconciliation. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have adopted our attitude in the recent debates in yet another attempt to find another elected Assembly that may help to create an atmosphere that will allow the two communities to get together peacefully and talk about politics, like the rest of us, instead of indulging in violence and crime.
I feel strongly about the counter-productive elements that can be engendered by some of this emergency legislation, if it is allowed to go on and become worse. There has to be a limit. The process of normalisation means that we have to examine seriously the possibility of perhaps allowing parts of the legislation to lapse, or even all of it to disappear.
The Bennett committee was established following a number of serious allegations of violence, and the subject has been discussed at length in previous debates. These allegations were of violence against suspects held under the Emergency Provisions Act. The Bennett report recommendations concerning the treatment of suspects and access to solicitors and training and supervision of detectives were accepted by the Government, and we welcomed that acceptance.
The new Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Jack Hermon, also expressed himself as being determined to eliminate violence against suspects, and we welcome that. Allegations of serious violence have—I hesitate to say this—almost ceased, although there were many such allegations some years ago. Now solicitors report complaints of malpractices only occasionally during interrogation.
However, even the absence of such allegations does not mean that the operation of the Act should go unchecked. Some research into the operation of the Act was carried out by the Cobden Trust, a registered charity established to do

971
research and education work into civil liberties. I commend the results of the research, one of which is entitled "Ten Years on in Northern Ireland". It is an excellent research document.
The hon. Member for Armagh remarked that some research had been done by academics who could "stand over their work", and the research to which I am referring was also done by academics who could stand over their work. They may have come to different conclusions, but the same criteria must apply. They found a number of things in their research. For example, they found that 90 per cent. of all arrests under emergency legislation, either the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act, do not result in any charge against the suspect. Many of those arrested are picked up at home in the early hours of the morning. They are taken to Gough or Castlereagh interrogation centres and held for questioning for extended periods before being released without charge.
We know that such operations, particularly when one person is arrested on a number of occasions or when a number of people are picked up from a small community and detained, serve to exacerbate still further the relations between the community and the RUC. That is one of the counter-productive elements to which I referred.
It was also found that a high proportion of cases going to the non-jury Diplock courts were not terrorist offences but robbery—and robbery is a scheduled offence—for which the police and court records disclose no evidence of a terrorist motive. That does not help to enamour the local community of the operation of the Act.
These studies also show that the police continue to rely heavily on confession statements, with about 90 per cent. of cases coming before the Diplock courts relying solely or mainly on a confession statement. It was also found that younger suspects and those who are held for longer periods are more likely to confess. The Bennett committee recommendation on the length of questioning and the limit on the number of officers involved in interrogating one suspect are not always observed. Considerable pressure is put on suspects to confess and the Bennett recommendations are not always followed.
The findings are the product of serious research. They must concern us all in relation to the operation of the Act and its effect on the communities. The distinction between the role of the Army and the role of the police is blurred by their common involvement in arrest and interrogation operations involving the questioning of detainees' families and friends about their political views and associations—in other words, "screening"—rather than on specific criminal activities of which the detainee is suspected. That could operate against the Act.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in a press notice released on 21 June 1982, said:
"Under sections 11 and 14 of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978, both the police and the Army have special powers of arrest. A constable can arrest any person whom he suspects of being a terrorist and this person may then be detained for up to 72 hours. A member of the Army can arrest, and detain for up to four hours, a person suspected of committing or being about to commit an offence. There is no requirement that there be objective grounds, such as might be reviewed by a court, for exercising these powers.
A subjective decision to arrest may be implemented in a straightforward way. The Advisory Commission has thought that, at a minimum, there must be a reasonable grounds before an arrest is made and all officers must be accountable for their decisions."
972
That underlines the blurring of the roles of the two forces. After giving a number of examples the commission continued:
"These examples show the limited, and reactive, role of the Diplock courts. It would be an exaggeration to say that all the important decisions are made prior to the trial in the Diplock courts, but certainly some highly significant aspects of the process do precede the judicial hearing. It is surely vital that the use of powers which can deprive someone of his liberty should be subject to review of some sort. It must be correct that people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Despite legal technicalities, a fairer test on the admissibility of statements could and should be introduced. Perhaps it would be advantageous if the judges drafted the rules, or a code of practice, laying down what had to be done before any statement of confession could be admitted in court."
The Cobden Trust research set out a code of practice that could apply in the cases outlined by the standing commission. The standing commission, in its seventh report produced on 11 March 1982, referred to a review of the emergency legislation that it had been carrying out. It considered that the time had come to question the very existence of the Diplock courts—with one judge and no jury—for scheduled offences, rather than simply examine matters of detail thrown up by the operation of the Act. That is a significant statement from an important body which examined this matter closely.
Mr. Freeson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever may be the desirability of the review that has been announced by the Secretary of State, in view of the work that has already been done by these organisations to which my hon. Friend has referred at length, there is no need to delay matters for the indefinite period to which the Secretary of State referred? On some of these matters, action could be taken forthwith.
Mr. Stallard: That was precisely the point I was making. I did not think that we had to wait, as the Secretary of State implied, to the end of the Lord Jellicoe inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Some matters are already well documented and certainly well enough known to be part of a parallel inquiry now. That was one of the purposes of my amendment. The commission was mainly concerned about the single judge issue, but its general view was that there should be a review of the legislation. That conclusion must be emphasised.
Last year a conference on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland was held at Queen's university in Belfast. Delegates were connected mainly with the peace movement as well as some of the legal groups and the conference was sponsored by the National Council for Civil Liberties. The conference was reconvened this year. Both conferences stressed the need for a judicial review into the working of the Emergency Provisions Act.
Thus, all who have examined the problem closely have concluded that a judicial review is needed and that it need not have to wait for as long as the Secretary of State implied. In my amendment I also mentioned the terms of reference, as did the Secretary of State, who said that he would speak about the subject later. I do not see why he could not then have announced the terms of reference. At one stage he seemed almost to be pre-empting the decision of the inquiry or the recommendations that might come from it.
Lord Gardiner and his committee were asked:
"to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the

973
preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations"—
which of course they did.
Now the terms of reference must be much broader and the inquiry must last longer. From the research and discussions that have taken place, we can see how broad those terms of reference ought to be. They should question whether in the administration of justice there is now any need for the Emergency Provisions Act in view of the dangers to civil liberties and human rights that that legislation has presented for nearly 10 years. The committee of inquiry should consider the use of the Act for screening rather than for the interrogation of those suspected of criminal activity. It must also consider the provisions in the Act for obtaining confessions and statements and the extent to which the police are thus encouraged to obtain by methods that may be unacceptable confessions that are often unreliable.
A desire has been expressed by many groups, and confirmed by an opinion survey carried out by the standing commission, for a return to jury trials. We all understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said about the intimidation of witnesses. The Gardiner committee referred to the number of witnesses who had been intimidated, but admitted that there was no evidence of the intimidation of jurors.
There was evidence of intimidation of witnesses and none of us can be surprised that some witnesses were afraid. No doubt even in London many witnesses are intimidated into not appearing at a trial. That is not peculiar to Northern Ireland, and the two year's statistics quoted by my right hon. Friend do not necessarily rule out consideration of a return to trial by jury for some offences, particularly as there is no evidence that jurors were intimidated. We have our suspicions about what might happen, but there are some cases in which jury trials would be appropriate in the Six Counties.
Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend will know from my previous involvement in these matters that I have considerable sympathy with the view that we must get the balance right between control of the situation and not undermining our aim of winning the support of both communities.
My hon. Friend will also be aware from the Cobden Trust book to which he has referred that, although the evidence on intimidation is not good, the trust points out, perhaps to the surprise of some people, the difficulty of getting Unionist paramilitaries convicted with a jury system. A significant change has been seen there, and I trust that my hon. Friend takes that into account when he says that some cases could be tried by juries.
Mr. Stallard: I was saying that there is no need for the blanket abolition of juries. Some of us would like to see a partial return to the jury system.
Another term of reference for an inquiry should be to consider the role of the DPP and the Attorney-General who are responsible for descheduling an offence when there is no evidence of terrorist motives and when a jury trial would be appropriate even under the existing law.
An inquiry should also look at the provisions for bail in the Emergency Provisions Act. That matter was
974
mentioned by the right hon. Member for Crosby. The enforcement of the Bennett recommendations on the supervision of the police and the handling of complaints against them could also be part of the terms of reference.
In the view of myself and others more expert than I, an inquiry of the sort that I have outlined could be carried out only by someone with experience of the operation of criminal trials preferably as a judge. I said at the outset that I was worried that the Secretary of State might be implying that Lord Jellicoe, whose excellent knowledge and character I concede, may be asked to continue from the Prevention of Terrorism Act inquiry into an Emergency Provisions Act inquiry. That would be a mistake; it must be a judicial inquiry.
The composition of the body conducting the inquiry, the type of inquiry and the terms of reference are crucial. Indeed, the terms of reference are so crucial that they should be discussed in the House before they are put into effect. That would give us the benefit of the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House and perhaps we would ensure that we set up an inquiry that the seriousness of the present tragic situation deserved.
While the inquiry must allow time for interested parties to give evidence, it should not be allowed to drag on as sometimes inquiries, and indeed speeches, are inclined to do. Therefore, I hope that a report of an inquiry of the type I have suggested can be made available in time for the next renewal debate. I further hope that when the Secretary of State replies he will be able to accept the points that I have made on behalf of a great many people who have taken much trouble researching the workings of the Emergency Provisions Act.
It is no use saying that we must wait for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act before we can examine the matter. That is not the answer. Enough has been done to allow the inquiry to start and to report in a reasonable time and to give those who are working hard on the reconciliation front in Northern Ireland some hope that the issue will not be shoved under the counter for another 12 or 18 months or until after the next election when perhaps someone else will have to deal with it. That is not the answer. Unless the Secretary of State can give an assurance that there will be a judicial review within the time limit for which I have asked and with the terms of reference debated in the House, I shall have to divide the House.
9.42 pm
Mr. Reginald Freeson: I share a good many of the anxieties that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). Although I shall not go over the details with which he has dealt I shall refer to the latter part of his remarks. While welcoming the Secretary of State's announcement, the impression that he gave of the long time scale of the intended review is not satisfactory to me, to my hon. Friend or to other hon. Members. It was announced in May after the Secretary of State or his predecessor had been pressed on the matter over a long time. It was further remarked upon, and no more than that, in his opening speech and during his remarks he indicated that he did not expect work to start until about September or October. I do not find that satisfactory.
As I said in an intervention earlier, the report to which my hon. Friend referred shows that a great deal of work has already been done on certain aspects of the operation

975
of the Emergency Provisions Act. It has already emerged that some important areas require attention and change. We do not need another six months, another year or whatever length of time it may be beyond that, for the House to have before it some recommendations for change.
With the time scale implied in the Secretary of State's remarks, if there are to be legislative changes put to the House, we may find ourselves dealing with them in 12 or 18 months from now. Why do we have to wait for so long before a number of the measures referred to by my hon. Friend are dealt with by the House? I put it quietly but I put it seriously that we do not need to wait so long. Changes in the Emergency Provisions Act could be introduced quickly.
I endorse my hon. Friend's strongly held view that the review should be a judicial review. I was not clear from the Secretary of State's remarks that we would have anything more than a significant judicial figure on the panel of inquiry. We are entitled to know whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to set up a judicial inquiry without his necessarily having to set down today the details and the terms of reference. He has made it clear that he is not in a position to do that anyway.
Most of the debates that we have had on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisons) Act have been interesting and valuable for individual Members—I have found tonight's debate valuable, especially the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—but, as some have said, they have become rituals. If the emergency legislation is to continue, the case for doing so must be justified on every occasion. If it is not, why bother to have six-monthly debates and six-monthly Divisions?
Having listened to all but the opening five minutes of the Secretary of State's speech, I can say that he did not justify the continuation of the emergency legislation. He did not present the argument for so doing in chapter and verse. There may be a case for continuing to renew it, but he did not present it to the House. I have read previous debates of this character in Hansard and I have attended some of them and I know that we are rarely presented with a full justification for renewal. Without necessarily accepting the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Armagh, we had more justification for renewal in his speech than in that of the Secretary of State. I did not agree with all the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman drew at the end of his speech, although I was extremely impressed by the general tenor of his remarks.
We have had this six-monthly ritual over a long period and no real justification for continuing to implement the Act. It is about time that we took this legislation and its interference with civil liberties more seriously. We are to have a review, and let it be a prompt judicial review. Let it not drag on for 12 or 18 months before the House is able to make changes in the current legislation or seriously to consider whether the continuation of the Act is justified. There are some who believe it to be counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Armagh I began to wonder whether I should participate in the debate. It was a compelling and moving speech. He has no reason to apologise for being angry about what he had to describe and what he has described previously. We on this side of the water who do not represent constituencies such as Armagh do not have first-hand experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North said, if I
976
and others represented a constituency such as Armagh, we might well draw virtually the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Armagh and might be just as angry and passionate. I feel passionate, but first-hand experience would make a tremendous difference.
As I have said, I cannot accept all the conclusions of the hon. Member for Armagh. We cannot accept that these practices are right or effective after all these years when we know what is being done within the context of the Act and other legislation and when we consider some of the practices that are applied by the authorities within the terms of the Act.
I reinforce a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). An essential par: of the theory of urban guerrilla warfare and of some other political revolutionaries in this country, as elsewhere, is the need to provoke the State into violent reaction. I fear that under the operation of the Emergency Provisions Act, like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, that has increasingly happened in the Unted Kingdom over the years. In a world of much poverty, mass disease, despotic war, terrorism, political injustice, of which Ireland's history has plenty of examples, the obscenity of the arms race and so-called sophisticated weaponry, there is an urgent need for more people to seek radical change. All of us in our different ways should accept that.
There is nothing radical or revolutionary about the bullet or the bomb, whoever uses it. Bully boy politics remain bully boy politics. They impoverish us all, whether we support them or not. We react in the way in which bully boy politicians, the terrorists, wish us to react.
Terrorising the innocent and murdering men, women and children, or supporting those who do, is barbaric and ineffectual. In a society such as ours where by no stretch of the imagination can we be described as helots who require such political action, we cannot accept for a moment the rejection of the politics of persuasion in favour of so-called revolutionary politics or Vanguardist politics, whether that is represented by the IRA in Northern Ireland or by other groups elsewhere in this country and other countries.
Whatever the cause and whatever the history, terrorism carries the same political disease that drove Hitler, Stalin and others like them to conduct themselves as they did. However, we must ask ourselves when we respond in Government and in Parliament in the way in which we have tended to respond over the years whether, as was being argued to some extent by the right hon. Lady, we are giving them the victory or the prospect of victory.
I shall not develop that approach because it is not the occasion to do so. It is in that mood and with that concern that the State and terrorism should not feed on one another that I turn in detail to one aspect of operations by the authorities under the Emergency Provisions Act. In view of the questions and correspondence in which I have been involved in connection with the use of plastic bullets, the Secretary of State will not be surprised when I turn to that aspect, which shows where things are going wrong and have been for some time.
I hope that the review of the operation of the Act goes as wide as the Secretary of State suggested, to include the relationship of the practices of the security forces—whether it is the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment—to the policy controls of the Secretary of State and his colleagues over methods of maintaining security.

977
The operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, is already having an effect on the rest of the United Kingdom. It affects civil liberties throughout the land. For example, its operation in Northern Ireland bred the decision, following the inner city riots a year ago, to make available to police forces the riot control weapons previously used by the Army and the RUC in Northern Ireland. Their effect in maintaining law and order is dubious but they endanger limb and life not only of violent but of non-violent demonstrators and of innocent bystanders.
As I said, the most significant of those is the plastic bullet—baton rounds. Water cannon are unwieldy and vulnerable and they exhaust their water supply rapidly. They are of no use with ever-changing circumstances involving crowds. Reports have made that clear. Some time ago a Home Office working group on protective clothing and equipment made that clear.
The plastic bullet has a solid cylinder, 1½in. in diameter and 4in. long. It weighs ⅓lb. It is fired from guns with a velocity of 60m to 75m per second, according to the Secretary of State for Defence. It is about the size of a cricket ball, appreciably harder and is fired at 134 to 160 mph.
It is highly dangerous and has produced a disturbing crop of injuries. Up to mid-November, 43,000 such bullets had been fired, causing 10 known deaths. At c. 42 of the Official Report for 6 July 1981 the Secretary of State revealed that in less than two months 110 people went to hospital with injuries caused by plastic bullets, 45 of whom needed to be admitted as in-patients. According to United States Army research, which is available to the Government under exchange agreements, heavy casualties were to be expected from using such a weapon. Riot control weapons with impact energy above 90 ft/lb were in the "severe damage region". Previous answers to parliamentary questions that I put down stated that at its extreme range of 50yd the plastic bullet has an energy level of 110ft/lbs, while at 5yd it is 210 ft/lbs. The plastic bullet is perhaps the most dangerous of the so-called less lethal riot control weapons used by national security forces anywhere in the world.
It is doubly disturbing that there is mounting evidence that plastic bullets are being used freely, if not irresponsibly, in Northern Ireland. I hope that the situation will be looked into, as I have urged for some time. Numerous incidents have been reported in which standing instructions on the use of plastic bullets have been violated. They should be used only when they would represent "minimum and reasonable force", they should be aimed at selected persons and not indiscriminately at a crowd, they should be aimed at the lower part of the body and fired at a minimum range of 20m except where personal safety is threatened. Disregard of those minimal precautions has helped to inflame already difficult circumstances, as well as increasing the number of casualties.
The exceptionally high rate of use of plastic bullets last year gives the impression of almost uncontrolled firing. I use the word "impression" because I shall quote figures that reinforce one's anxiety about the matter. Whereas 13,000 were fired in the eight years 1973–80, some 30,000 were fired in 1981, 16,500 of them in the month of May
978
alone. Those are extraordinary figures. The previous highest level for baton round firing in a year was just over 23,000 in 1972, and the highest figure for a single month was just under 4,000 in February 1972.
By no standards could the violence confronting the security forces in the early summer of last year compare with the intensity of the disturbances in 1972, the worst year of the present troubles in Northern Ireland—a year of massive upheavals over internment, Bloody Sunday in Derry and its aftermath, and so on.
To give just one index of comparison, the number of deaths arising out of the conflict in Northern Ireland in 1981—I know that the figures sound cold but I am making a point of comparison—was 108, of which 10 were soldiers. In 1972, there were 103 Army deaths out of a grisly total of 467. Was 1981 a worse year than 1972 in the light of those figures? Yet look at the figures for plastic bullets that were used which I have quoted. There does not seem to be any effective justification for the high level of use of plastic bullets last year. It suggests a level of irresponsibility, possibly of indiscipline, or failure of control of some kind, which bodes ill for their use in the rest of the United Kingdom should that ever occur—and they are in stock now.
The Government need to take members of the public much more fully into their confidence if they do not wish to see the much-valued relationship of trust between the British public and police severely frayed by the introduction of the riot gear from Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. The secretive reflexes of Government should be controlled. Why, for example, have repeated requests by hon. Members over the years for information on the precise safety tests carried out on these weapons and their results been fobbed off with empty phrases? We do not get the right answers. Now that the use of the weapons is being stopped elsewhere, after the Ireland experience, it is time for openness on this issue of key importance.
There is, indeed, a strong case for including under the review a public inquiry into the safety and characteristics of the weapons, to be carried out before they are used more widely in the United Kingdom. At present there is great stress from the Home Secretary, and from the Home Office working group on protective clothing and equipment for the police, on their being used only as a "last resort".
Were there really just under 30,000 occasions of last resort in Northern Ireland last year? The implicit double standards—with extreme verbal reluctance to employ in the rest of the United Kingdom a weapon in every-day use on the streets of Belfast, Derry and elsewhere—has already provoked adverse responses in Northern Ireland, and I think the Secretary of State is well aware of that.
However, I am at least as worried by the obverse of the coin, that once the novelty of the weapons has worn off and the British public becomes accustomed to their presence in the police armoury, the lax situation that appears to have existed recently in Northern Ireland will become evident here, too. Then we may see these weapons in use against groups of people who are not a serious threat to life or property, but who are campaigning in their own ways without threat of violence. It is a slippery slope that we should not tread. A number of bodies, for example, the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, and the Council for Science and Society, have urged the Government not to extend their use, and have supported the need for an inquiry into their use in Northern Ireland.

979
I believe that the House should also endorse that view. I hope that it will, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do so.
We have seen in British cities, in different circumstances but with some of the same social and economic backgrounds, the inflammable nature of the human results which flow from violent situations. It would not take much in the way of repressive policing or the repressive use of this kind of weapon by authorities elsewhere to set up another chain reaction. It is the sort of lesson that we should have learnt from the sad history of technological riot control in Northern Ireland, but so far we do not seem to be attempting to learn those lessons.
980
I end with a general observation, which I make not just as a rhetorical flourish at the end of my remarks. We must beware not only of terrorism but of our own, even unintended, abuse of power, whether it be technological or political. Each feeds on the other in a world of increasing insensitivity and violence. Let there be no mistake about it. If we continue to accept these things, unquestioned and unchallenged, we in this House will be infected by the insensitivity of much of the violence and aggressiveness that is spreading throughout the world today.
10.6 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I again place on record my instinctive distate for this type of legislation. I have lived in Northern Ireland under a succession of repressive Acts of Parliament such as this, and it is my honest and considered opinion that this type of legislation is counter-productive, and does not do what it is intended to do.
On every occasion when a renewal debate takes place, everyone who is present listens with concern and respect to what has to be said by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). For many years, almost weekly—certainly monthly—he has been losing close personal friends. There was a time, in the 1970s, when the same thing was happening to me, when I lost many, many friends who were brutally murdered and assassinated by so-called Loyalist paramilitary gangs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) realises, in so far as it is possible for a Member of Parliament on this side of the Irish Sea to realise, the emotion and feelings of frustration and anger that are generated by the continuing succession of murders. This legislation is on the statute book, has been on the statute book, and has been renewed twice a year, and yet this grisly total of murders continues to mount.
Recently I acquired a video. During the recent weeks I have been taping news bulletins about the Falkland Islands, the war in the Middle East, and the war in the Lebanon. Neatly interspersed between the tragedies there, only last week and the week before, there was the picture of Belfast devastated by car bombs set off by the IRA, people who are allegedly from the same tribe as I am in Northern Ireland—because there is a tribal situation there. A car bomb was set off indiscriminately outside a hostel where 28 young nurses were badly injured. Even tonight, in my constituency, clearing-up operations are taking place following a car bomb explosion that severely damaged and almost demolished 300 houses. That happened in a Catholic district, not a Loyalist area, of Northern Ireland. This explains why so much emotion is generated by Northern Ireland Members when we discuss these matters. We live with the reality of what terrorists can do to us and to our constituents.
I should like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to what I hoped would not happen but what, in fact, has happened. This legislation has taken on a tribal aspect. Catholics, who are the minority in Northern Ireland, feel that the Emergency Provisions Act is aimed at them. It is mostly in their community that the arrests and the detentions take place in the early hours of the morning. I accept that on many occasions the Act has been used against Loyalist paramilitaries. It has, however, to be stated that it is now accepted in Northern Ireland that the Act is aimed at the Catholics. Whether that is or is not the case, the fact is that this is what people believe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East rightly drew attention to the great concern and anger within the Catholic community about the over-use of plastic bullets. The Secretary of State cannot afford to underestimate the feeling among the Catholic population about the use of plastic bullets in riots which they feel have been generated by the IRA. There can be no doubt that
982
some of the 10 people, perhaps all of them, although I am not in a position to say, who have been killed by plastic bullets have been innocent.
When a plastic bullet kills an innocent Catholic, that is not a victory for the security forces, for the Government or for legislation that permits the use of such bullets. It is a victory for the IRA, which brutally exploits the situation. I have seen the funerals. I have seen the statements that emerged from the IRA when a young teenage girl—some of the victims are not even teenagers—has been killed by a plastic bullet. The over-use of these bullets creates great friction and hostility. It is counter-productive. It drives a wedge between the majority and the minority communities.
I recognise that members of the majority Unionist and Protestant population, hearing what I say, will remark "We always knew Gerry Fitt was a secret supporter of the IRA". If one voices opposition to this Act, which the majority Protestant population see as being on their side, this must mean, in their view, that I am giving covert support to the IRA. That is patently not so. It is, however, the way in which debates on renewal of these provisions are interpreted in Northern Ireland.
When the issue of plastic bullets was mentioned earlier in this debate, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked whether live bullets would be preferred. That is a big debating point in Northern Ireland. Over the past few years— I am not going back to "bloody Sunday"—many innocent people have been killed by real bullets. I refer to a case that I have brought to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office and about which I have written to the Prime Minister. It concerns a 15-year-old boy called Danny Barrett. Everyone will concede that members of the IRA in the Ardoyne area of Belfast, in July last year, were shooting at the security forces. A soldier on top of Flax Street Mill, in evidence that he gave to the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that he thought he saw a puff of smoke and fired at it. There was no puff of smoke but he killed the 15-year-old boy.
I have spoken to the parents of that young boy. They are absolutely heart broken. It will take a long time for them to get over, if they ever do, the loss of their young son who was doing nothing but standing outside the door of his home. There was shooting in the area. But the soldier was not on the ground. He was on the top of Flax Street Mill. It is unlikely that anyone would have regarded him as a target, but the soldier fired down into a bunch of children with a live bullet and killed young Danny Barrett. Needless to say, that event has caused much concern. It leads to other questions which should be answered.
The case was sent to the DPP who issued a statement saying that there would be no prosecution in that case. It is only because I have inside information that I am able to refer to the puff of smoke. It was different for the parents. The papers were sent to the DPP. Then a policeman called on the bereaved parents saying that there had been word from the DPP—there would be no prosecution.
Moreover, the inquest on that young boy has not been heard. That is another cause for worry in Northern Ireland. When people are killed in such circumstances, whether by plastic bullets or, as was Danny Barrett, with live ones, it takes many months, if not going into a second year, before an inquest is held. All sorts of excuses are trotted out by the Northern Ireland Office. They say something about administrative difficulties. I see no opportunity for

983
administrative difficulties in the holding of an inquest. It would be in the interests of the public if inquests were held with all due speed and if all arrangements were made so that the relations of the person who has been killed could have the matter clarified.
It is felt that when people die in such circumstances, inquests are often prolonged for six months or a year—in Danny Barrett's case it is nearly a year—in the hope that there will be another set of atrocities and people will have forgotten about the first one. I am sure that there are many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who have forgotten the name of Danny Barrett and the circumstances in which he died. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland would not recall the 10 people who were killed by plastic bullets to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East referred. It is in the interests of neither the Government nor the community to prolong the time before inquests take place.
I sometimes read the Republican newspapers that are sent to me privately. They are put through my door in the early hours of the morning to keep me up to date with what is being said about me. They do not make good reading sometimes. Those papers and even the legitimate press have often said that people who will read these articles with more generosity of spirit than I believe that soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland can kill anybody and get away with it. Only in a small minority of cases can the verdict be anything other than guilty. In almost every case of a soldier or policeman taking the life of an individual, if there is the slightest doubt, the verdict is always in favour of the member of the security force.
In Northern Ireland what I have just said will be interpreted as an attack on the security forces. It is no such thing. I recognise the tremendous difficulties under which the security forces are labouring. I am only too well aware of the problems facing the UDR which the hon. Member for Armagh mentioned—I would not object to calling him my hon. Friend on this occasion. When members of the IRA murder those UDR men, they say that they are shooting at a uniform or at a member of the security forces, but they are shooting milkmen, bakers, shop assistants, barbers, shop fitters, labourers, unemployed people and tradesmen. They are shooting members of the Protestant community, and well they know it.
The recent gruesome catalogue of murders of members of the security forces, particularly in the Strabane and Armagh areas, has been condemned by every voice that I know which represents the Catholic community, including the political and religious leaders, so the IRA cannot claim to be acting in the interests of the Catholic community. I support much of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said in relation to the murderous campaign and the continuing tradegy in Northern Ireland. He said, as is said all too often, that 2,300 people had died in Northern Ireland as a result of the IRA campaign of terrorism. That is not strictly true. It is said quickly and some of the newspapers here would probably jump on it, but the IRA was not responsible for 2,300 deaths, although I freely admit that it was responsible for the majority of them.
I refer here to what is known in Northern Ireland as "what-about-ery". That is what it is called when a Unionist stands up and lists a catalogue of murders of members of the Protestant community and I am supposed to say "Ah, but what about …?" in an attempt to justify the other side in a macabre game of "You are worse than us". I am
984
not in that game at all. At the present time, the IRA is responsible for the major part of the death and destruction taking place.
The Protestant, so-called Loyalist paramilitary groups are still there, however. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleague condemned them today for the attempt to blow up a Catholic church in the Cavehill Road in Belfast just over a week ago. That was done for exactly the same reasons as IRA members were on hunger strike last year. There is no difference between them. A person called Somerville was found guilty of taking part in the atrocious murder of the Miami show band to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred. That man is now claiming political status. The Government have rightly refused to give him political status, so his colleagues outside the prison decided to blow up a Catholic church. A large number of people could have been killed. The Protestants, so-called Loyalist paramilitary groups are certainly still there. I condemn the IRA and I admit that it is responsible for the major part of the tragedy now taking place, but we must be ever mindful that there are two sides in this conflict.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take particular note of the case that has been made about the excessive use of plastic bullets and especially the case of Danny Barrett, who was shot last year and whose inquest has still not taken place.
In another case, a person by the name of Rafferty was interrogated by the police five or six years ago. When he went into the police station, he had all his physical abilities about him. After being interrogated, he emerged from the police station badly beaten up. He was examined by a doctor who verified that there were cuts and bruises all over his body. He said that he had been beaten up in the police station. Again, this is not an attack on the police, although I can almost hear people in Belfast saying that it is an attack on the police who in their eyes can do no wrong.
When that man left the police station, he was badly bruised; of that there is no doubt. He was examined by a doctor and the police said that his wounds were self-inflicted. There may well be some injuries that can be self-inflicted, and I have no doubt that in their attempt to discredit the police and the RUC interrogating officers some IRA men inflict wounds on themselves. However, the extent of the injuries suffered by Mr. Rafferty convinces me that they were not self-inflicted.
Mr. Rafferty has fought year after year, at inquiry after inquiry and in court after court to prove that his injuries were not self-inflicted and that he was beaten. He reached the end of the line in the last two or three days, when the High Court decided that there was considerable doubt which must be exercised in favour of the police.
That was an added bonus for the IRA. It was absolutely delighted with that verdict, because it said "It proves once again that the police can do whatever they like with you. Tell the Catholic community to be careful with the RUC, because the RUC is the enemy." Had that verdict been otherwise, some people would have believed that we could still expect justice where it was due.
The feeling in Northern Ireland is that in a tribal sense the Act is deliberately aimed against the Catholic community. That may not be so, but that is what people believe. They believe that the security forces, even when guilty of dereliction of duty, receive the benefit of the doubt.

985
The parents of someone who has lost his life, such as those in the case of Danny Barrett, should be asked to give evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, yet those parents were not. They were told that the papers would go to the DPP. Afterwards, a policeman told them that the DPP had considered the case and had taken the view that the soldier was on top of the Flax Street Mill, was worried about all the shooting taking place, saw smoke, thought it was a gun—which it was not—killed the young boy, but was not acting with malicious intent. As a result, the DPP decided to do nothing about it. That does not bring back that young boy's life. I have met the young boy's parents and they are absolutely heart-broken about the circumstances in which their young 15-year-old innocent son died.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, the Army has the yellow card. Some people think that it is too restricted and that the Army should be given more leeway. If a soldier is able to shoot to kill merely because he thought he saw a puff of smoke, I do not believe that the yellow card is the proper means of allowing the Army to fire.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North will remember the case of his constituent Mr. Boyle. The hon. Gentleman was incensed at that. Therefore, the Army can, and does, make mistakes. When it does, it should admit the fact. If there is an attempt to vindicate everything that the Army does, people in Northern Ireland who do not support the terrorists will begin to have less respect for the security forces.
10.30 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: Like most hon. Members, I deplore the need for this order after 13 years. Most hon. Members in the House 13 years ago did not expect that there would be a need for it in 1982. I am disappointed that some hon. Members should have found it necessary to table an amendment because one of the great things about the House is the unanimity with which hon. Members have approached the problems of Northern Ireland and the question of how to deal with terrorism.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), for whom I have the greatest admiration. He is an extremely courageous man, and his integrity is of the highest order. I am afraid, however, that I cannot agree with him in his support for the amendment. He said that the Catholic community felt threatened because of the arrests in the early morning, which he felt were devisive. However, that is the only time when the forces of law and order are able to conduct that type of exercise with some certainty of being able to achieve their objective, and do it with as little bloodshed as possible. This technique was followed recently in the South Atlantic, where considerable advantage was taken of the enemy when they were sleeping. An enormous amount of bloodshed was saved as a result.
In a war, one must expect some hurt to be suffered, certainly by the security people whose purpose is to help to maintain law and order. We know that in the past CS gas and rubber bullets have been used as an alternative to lead bullets. More recently plastic bullets have been used. I am not surprised that an enormous number of plastic bullets are now used.
986
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that he considered the figure to be excessive, but I should prefer to see a number of people in hospital because of an injury from a plastic bullet than the death of one soldier, killed in trying to do his duty on the streets of Northern Ireland. I feel that the yellow card is quite restrictive enough.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West has had an opportunity to visit some of the ranges that are used to train soldiers for service in Northern Ireland. He may know that I have recently completed quite a long service in the Reserves and I have on more than one occasion had the opportunity to use this type of range.
It is extremely difficult to tell whether one is about to be fired at from a window or doorway in a narrow Northern Ireland street. A soldier has a split second to react to whatever happens. Somebody in a window may be using a pair of binoculars, a camera, or just a hairdrier. All of these visions in a window can easily be mistaken for someone using a small arm.
Therefore, we have to congratulate the security forces on the low number of accidents caused to the population. I feel that when there is danger of this sort people should keep well out of the way if they are not involved. This applies to accidents and fires in England as well. It would be fatal for people to mingle with the fire brigade or the ambulance service, or to interfere, because that only delays the work of those services. In like manner, if people are foolish enough to appear at a window or door during a shooting they run a grave risk which should not be underestimated.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned Danny Barrett, a 15-year-old boy. It is tragic for parents when a child whom they love dearly is cut down in the prime of life. Parents have a grave duty. I hope that the parents of that boy, and other parents in Northern Ireland, will consider carefully what they should advise their children to do in such circumstances. They should advise them to steer clear of riots.
Mr. Fitt: I mentioned the case because the young boy was standing at his own door. He was not in the street and there was no riot, although IRA gunmen had been shooting.
Mr. Thorne: I took particular note that there had been gunfire in the area. It is foolish to stand near a door or window in such circumstances. The ranges to which I referred simulate people appearing in doorways and windows. A soldier with a firearm in his hand must decide in a split second whether the person in the doorway or window is aiming a gun or a camera. It is not easy to decide whether to fire one's weapon before the other person fires.
Parents have a duty to ensure that their children are properly looked after, in the same way as they teach their children to keep away from the road and to follow the green cross code. Northern Ireland parents have the extra responsibility of ensuring that their children do not become mixed up in shootings and so run the risk of serious injury.
Mr. John Patten: I have been listening with care to my hon. Friend's observations because I am aware of his Service record. He is dealing with the problem of young people and their appearances on the street. He will be aware of a tragic incident in Londonderry on 24 May when a soldier was killed by petrol devices thrown by children.

987
In the circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the security forces have a difficult task when facing such adverse conditions and use minimum force?
Mr. Thorne: I was coming to that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I deplore the fact that so much IRA activity is carried out behind a mask of women and children. A favourite IRA tactic in a riot is to ensure a sufficient depth of children and women in the front of the crowd to distract the forces. IRA terrorists then throw bombs over the heads of the children and women—that is, when they are not encouraging the children to throw missiles. We should ensure that Northern Ireland parents accept the responsibility for ensuring the safety of their children. If they do not take on that responsibility, they must not be surprised when the worst happens.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned the Loyalist prisoner who has been on hunger strike for 30 days. The media have been low key on the issue. Indeed, until I saw the news on the agency tapes tonight I did not realise that anyone was on hunger strike in Northern Ireland. When a low-key approach is adopted in such cases, there is less chance of those involved achieving their aims. I do not support Loyalist hunger strikers any more than IRA hunger strikers.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that when there was any doubt about an incident the benefit of it was invariably given to the police or security forces. If a person is alleged to have committed an offence under United Kingdom law he is always given the benefit of any doubt and I am not surprised that it is given to the police and security forces who do a difficult job magnificently in terrible circumstances. They are the envy of the world. I can think of no Service personnel anywhere else in the world who could do that job with so little bloodshed.
The security forces have had a difficult time. There were problems with the media in the early days when it was suggested that they were trying to make stories. That period has passed and the reporting of issues is extremely responsible. Of course, in any society there is the occasional rogue elephant. Even the House has experience of that and we should not be surprised if the security forces and the police suffer the same problem. It would be wrong to condemn all the rest because of the way that one or two have behaved.
The security forces have learnt in Northern Ireland some arts and skills that were useful in the recent conflict in the South Atlantic. I was interested to hear one or two men say recently what a refreshing change it was to be fighting an enemy in uniform. Whatever they thought of the forces they were fighting in the South Atlantic, at least those forces did not disguise themselves as civilians and take advantage of that anonymity.
We must accept that the IRA and Loyalist terrorists who conduct cowardly, underhand actions behind respectable fronts are the sole cause of the problems in Northern Ireland. The security forces have a duty to protect themselves to the best of their ability. They do a fantastic job, and I hope that we will give them every encouragement to continue in that way.
10.44 pm
Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said that he had had an easy six months, with only four people being killed in his constituency. I wish that I could say the same, but on
988
Sunday 28 March, Inspector Duddy of the RUC left his church in Londonderry after a service, got into his car with his two teenage sons and was shot dead before their eyes. On 1 April, two soldiers who were changing batteries in a radio station were ambushed, shot and killed in Londonderry on their way back to their base. On Tuesday 27 April, Lieutenant Hamilton of the UDR, a bread server, was shot and killed by the IRA while he was delivering bread to a supermarket. On 4 May, Constable Caskie and his companions were ambushed by the IRA in the centre of Londonderry. He was killed and the woman constable with him was seriously wounded. On 12 May, Mr. Cunningham, an ex-member of the UDR, was shot through the back of the head and killed while at work tiling a bathroom in Strabane.
Mr. Fitt: By a 15-year-old boy.
Mr. Ross: By, it is alleged, a 15-year-old boy, who has since been arrested and charged but not yet found guilty.
On Monday 24 May, soldiers in an armoured vehicle were petrol-bombed by children. They had to evacuate the vehicle which ran forward, crushed one of the soldiers and killed him. I consider that to be murder although it is marked down in the report as an accident. On 11 June, Detective Constable Reeves, in a follow-up search of a lock-up garage with the Army, which had discovered apparently stolen property, picked up a television set. It exploded and killed him. On 15 June, Mr. Cummings, a member of the UDR, was shot and killed in Strabane. Nine people were killed in 12 weeks and that is far too many.
Although not all those people were killed in my constituency, I hope the House will realise that I also know what the practical effects of terrorism are like. There have been many more such murders.
That is a horrifying record, but, more important than the record, it demonstrates the capability that the IRA still possesses to commit murder almost at will, to do it with extreme efficiency and so far as one can gather, when the murders are carried out by the highly experienced murder gangs, to do it with very little chance of being caught. It is that that I must put in the balance when others call for modification and for a relaxation of the measures that are before the House for renewal.
The IRA tried hard and often in Londonderry last year, but it did not succeed. This year it is succeeding with a terrifying regularity. The devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland was declared unfit at one stage, in 1972 and even before that, to deal with the security situation in Ulster. Since that time responsibility has rested in the House. I wonder whether, if those who were so anxious to remove that power to this House in those days had to do it now, they would be as anxious to go down that road.
A great deal of the terrorist activity in Northern Ireland over the years has happened because there has been a persistent failure to understand the driving, motivating force that keeps the IRA at work. The IRA only keeps at it because its members believe that in the long run they will win. There is a lack of understanding in the House of the IRA mentality.
On 24 March 1972, Captain Orr, the hon. Member who preceded my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in that constituency, said that
"the imposition of direct rule against the wishes of the majority can only be described as an act of folly."

989
The then Prime Minister said that that could not possibly be so because the Government remained convinced that the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted peace and security.
The then Prime Minister went on:
"The IRA has demanded an amnesty. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal. It demanded the withdrawal of all British troops. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal. It demanded the abolition of Stormont. That is not Her Majesty's Government's proposal."—[Official Report, 24 March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1870.]
However, a year later that third demand of the IRA was met. No member of that terrorist organisation or its supporters will ever be convinced that its demand was not met. They will never be convinced that it was not met at their behest because of the military action that they took. Failure to understand that is failure to understand the mentality of those with whom we are in military conflict.
We are told that these same folk were recently trying to buy anti-aircraft missiles in the United States. Newspaper reports tell us that they had $1 million to spend. It is clear that there is no shortage of money. That is a terrifying prospect. What do they want missiles for? Does anyone imagine that this organisation would use them only against helicopters? I do not. I believe that it would be prepared to go for much more spectacular and terrifying deeds.
What further actions and what further methods of operation is the IRA contemplating that have not yet come to light? We have read press reports that were issued by the Israeli Government that IRA members were found in the Lebanon. When the Government spokesman replies to the debate, I hope that we shall be told whether the Government have yet had confirmation of that claim. If they have, the Northern Ireland people should be told.
We have seen a return to the car bomb, which can mean only that the IRA has a great deal more explosive and explosive devices than it has had for many years. Questions must be asked, because one of the great enemies of the IRA is truth and an understanding of its intentions as well as its capabilities. Far too often the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland have been left in the dark when clear warnings of IRA intentions could have been given. It is clear that this organisation is still capable of much evil. It is clear also that when it reorganised in 1977–78 in response to the increasing security force action at that time there was a decrease in the total number of adult deaths.
In the years 1972 to 1976 the average number of deaths each year due to terrorist action was slightly less than 300. In 1977 it fell to 132. Since then it has been over 100 on only one occasion, which was in 1979. The average since 1977 has been 96 or 97. That shows that the IRA is operating at a certain level of activity. Over the past five years the number of civilian deaths has been about 50 every year, which is just short of one a week.
There must be a reason for the great drop in fatalities. I accept, of course, that in the earlier stages they were not all caused by IRA activity. However, there has been a great change from one level of death and destruction to another. There must be a reason for that. This must mean that the present security policy is capable only of keeping the level of deaths at about 100 a year, give or take 10 or
990
15. That is just not good enough. There should be another security policy and an effort to drive that death rate much lower until it disappears completely.
These powers are necessary. It is also necessary to have political action that will convince the IRA that Ulster is British and that the House means to keep it British. Because the Labour Party's spokesman only yesterday said that it was not willing to work for the unity of the Kingdom, he and his party have done much to encourage the IRA to believe that its objective will succeed. A great part of any military battle is the belief that one will win—the belief not only in the moral rightness of one's cause but that one can, and will, win.
The fact that a major party in the United Kingdom says through its spokesman in the House that it will not work solidly and continuously for the maintenance of the Union means that the IRA believes that there is a possibility that that party will surrender at some point to its demands.
There is also the dangerous assumption that has been followed assiduously throughout the years, that one can buy off Republicanism with a job in a devolved structure in Northern Ireland. Those people cannot be bought off. One cannot buy off Charlie Haughey or Dublin. Those people are all after a united Ireland. They are all prepared to twist and turn, but they work continuously towards that end. They will not be bought off by jobs. The idea that giving a job to the political Republicans will buy off the gunman Republicans is utter nonsense. It has never been possible to do so.
I live in a Republican village. I know men and women who are now on the run. I know men who killed and who are in prison. I know what they think of those politicians on the Catholic side of the fence. They say to me in private "Willie, they betrayed us."
Of all hon. Members I am the one on the Unionist side of the fence closest to the Republican community, as I have lived in it all my life. I know the people and their attitude. I know the depth of their commitment to Republicanism and the violence that they have perpetuated down the years. I am under no illusions about their intentions anymore than they are under any illusions about my objectives for the future of Northern Ireland.
That is why I come back to the word that was used by the Under-Secretary of State in a bit of chit-chat across the Floor of the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South. He used the word "acquiescence". That word has not been given enough attention. It is not necessary to give people a job or to make them love one. It is only necessary at the end of the day to make them acquiesce in the structure, the government and the future of the country.
There are many in the Creggan, Gobnascale and in West Belfast who acquiesce to the presence of the IRA. They give the IRA money and hiding places. However, that does not necessarily mean that they all love the IRA. It does not mean that they all willingly welcome and support the IRA. It means that they acquiesce and help, because they can do no better. They can do no better because the House has failed them more thoroughly and regularly than it has failed the Protestant community. The Roman Catholic community are the people who have the IRA on their backs. That is plain to anyone who goes into the areas, looks at those people and listens to what they have to say.
The Government have a duty to impose their authority and the rule of law to bring peace and normal justice to

991
the areas. The population cannot be expected to throw off the IRA. One does not argue with a gunman at the door in the Creggan; one does as one is told in West Belfast and many other places. The only ways that the gunman can be defeated are if he is driven out, put in prison or killed. Only by doing that will we convince the people who support him and are prepared to join in his evil activities that we intend to win and will beat the gunman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh mentioned the right of silence. There is also the question of guns that are used in murders—IRA guns that travel from one part of the Province to another to be used in murders in Armagh, Belfast, Londonderry or Strabane. They are doubtless used by different people. Should not the carriage of such guns be treated as a serious offence, perhaps attracting a life sentence? The person who transports the gun is part of the murdering organisation and is co-operating in the murders that the gun is used for. That issue should be more deeply explored. My previous requests have been turned down.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) spent time on the question of plastic bullets. They are used freely, but their use is necessary. If they were not used a lot more soldiers might be burnt to death by petrol bombs and a lot more lethal weapons might have to be used. In May 1981 we were in the middle of the hullabaloo about the IRA hunger strikers. Few can name them today. That is the measure of their failure. They are not the martyrs and are not written in everyone's heart in the way that they expected.
The plastic bullet is vital for the security forces in Northern Ireland. It must be retained and used as freely as the men on the ground facing the rioter and petrol bomber feel necessary. False restrictions should not be put on its use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh also mentioned the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), as I suppose we must call him. That person complained about the political bishops and constitutional politicians and asked where they were hiding. By being harsh on the constitutional politicians he displayed his utter contempt for the whole concept of democracy. When he was arrested in the United States he complained that he had no income other than social security benefits. Is a man elected to the House, entitled to the salary and the other perks that we have, not drawing his salary?
Mr. Stallard: No, he is not.
Mr. Ross: Is he then entitled to social security benefits? That is strange. I hope that we can be told what the position is.
We are debating in the normal six-monthly way the Emergency Provisions Act. I support the Act, although not willingly. It is an Act which is necessary for the welfare and the defence of the people of Northern Ireland. It is an Act which must be kept—and strengthened—in order finally to destroy the IRA and all its activities.
11.5 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I fully endorse all the comments that have been made by hon. Members, and by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), from all parts of the House expressing our admiration and our gratitude for the
992
efforts of the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. I hope that everyone in the House will support their efforts.
It is understandable that those of us living on this side of the water tend to think in particular about the soldiers from England, Scotland and Wales who go over the water to Northern Ireland in order to help maintain the peace there. But it is incumbent on us in this House tonight to think about the particular role of the security forces within the Province—those who were born and bred there and who will go on living there.
It is no invidious comparison to record a special tribute to those members of the security forces—they are a clear numerical majority—who come from Northern Ireland. In all likelihood they will live there for the rest of their lives, with their families, and it is with their families that now—and perhaps well into the future—they continue to be subjected to the threat of murderous and cowardly attack by barbarous terrorists. It is to them that we owe a great deal.
I would say, however, to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who is not in his usual place in the Chamber at the moment, that I fully understand his point about the monotonous litany of murder, terror, bombing and maiming. How could anyone fail to understand it? At the same time, I would not want him to think that there are not people on this side of the water who, through their sons, daughters or relations, have experienced, at least in some small part, that greater scale of terror with which he is all too familiar. I have within recent months been behind the coffin of a young rifleman from my constituency who served the United Kingdom and paid the ultimate price in Northern Ireland.
We have properly heard something about the restraint that the security forces show in undertaking their duties in the Province. Those who criticise the use of force by the security forces in the Province, and who feel that too much force is used, must remember the very great restraint that they have to show day by day. Sometimes, on the other hand, there is an element of criticism in the comments of some hon. Members who suggest that we are not letting the people who are in charge of security policy take the gloves off and get on with the job. I have heard those comments repeatedly in these and similar debates. To those who feel that taking off the gloves would suddenly make the difficult job of the security forces less difficult and less dangerous, I say that it might make it more difficult and more dangerous.
It is very important for the House to realise that the security force commanders in the Province—the GOC and the Chief Constable—have available all the resources that they need and are able to have a free hand, within the law, to take any action that they feel is necessary, and to take whatever operational decisions seem to them most likely to be effective. But, sadly, the history of mistrust between the communities in Northern Ireland—I need not elaborate on that history—is such that there clearly is a mistrust, on the part of some sections of the community, of the forces of law and order.
I do not believe that we shall eliminate terrorism until we isolate it totally from the community which it purports or pretends to serve.
Sometimes the terrorists try to portray themselves as the protectors and servants of certain sections of the community. What a sick joke that is. What a ghastly Gothic fantasy. Tell that to the 24 nurses who were injured

993
in Belfast by flying glass and debris within the last fortnight, by a bomb that was aimed, not at a particular target, but indiscriminately to maim, kill and injure. The fantasy of those evil, wicked and perverted minds, who suggest that somehow they are serving the interests of the community, deserves to be revealed for what it is, time and again. None of us should miss the opportunity, in this House or in any part of the United Kingdom, to reiterate that and drive the lesson home. It is as true in Armagh as it is in Aldershot.
It is a matter of great regret for all right hon. and hon. Members—most right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have voiced that regret—that the terrorists have achieved such success in their efforts in the past as to undermine the institutions of democracy and the rule of law, to a certain extent, as the right hon. Member for Crosby said. It has been a sad necessity, shared by the last Administration, the Administration before that, and this Administration, that in the face of such intimidation it has been necessary to adopt exceptional measures. Those exceptional measures were properly taken. They modify but do not completely abandon our normal standards and procedures for the conduct of criminal justice in this country. However, sometimes it seems to be forgotten by critics, especially by critics from abroad, as the right hon. Lady said, that many of the traditional safeguards of British justice remain in the Diplock courts.
I shall remind the House of those safeguards. First, strict rules of evidence apply. Secondly, the accused hears all the evidence. Thirdly, the accused is represented by counsel and may challenge the evidence in open court. The right of appeal of any person convicted in a Diplock court is unfettered on points of fact, as well as on points of law. The right of appeal is not restricted as it would be on this side of the water, had the case been tried before a jury court. All in all, many of the traditional safeguards of British justice, English law, are maintained within the framework of the Diplock courts. Those who want changes in the law serve their case ill if they choose not to remember those facts.
Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend, myself and the Government realise that other provisions in the Act incorporate exceptions from our normal procedures. That is why my right hon. Friend said that these procedures are to be reviewed. There is no doubt that, whatever the results of the review, it will not lead to the complete abolition of those courts in the near future, or the total riddance from the legal landscape of Northern Ireland of emergency provisions and special provisions. I doubt whether any right hon. Member or hon. Member, even the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who put his case so lucidly, believes that it would be possible to wipe away overnight all the special provisions that exist. But it is clear that the existing provisions may need to be adapted. They may need amendment. They may need development and change to take account of changing circumstances. It would be appropriate, my right hon. Friend feels, for the Government to have independent advice before deciding what changes need to be made.
Mr. Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that whatever else such a review may undertake or produce, it
994
will not be open for it to recommend, if it so decided, that the Act should be withdrawn? That is the import of what the hon. Gentleman has stated.
Mr. Patten: I apologise for not being present when the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made his contribution to the debate. This is an independent inquiry. Any independent inquiry can make any recommendations to the Government that it sees fit. It is then for the Government and the House to decide whether to adopt the recommendation. I was speculating that I thought it extremely unlikely, should the inquiry come forward in six, nine or 12 months' time with recommendations, that any of us could suspect that the security situation in the Province could be at such a pitch that we could get rid of all emergency provisions.
All hon. Members want the Act to be as effective as possible for its two entirely but internally consistent purposes. We want the Act to bring offenders to trial so that they get the appropriate sentence. The second purpose is, at the same time, to maintain confidence throughout the whole community that the processes involved are fair and the sentences deserved. There is a duality of purpose in the Act as at present drafted.
Freedom for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland can be achieved only if ordinary people respect the safeguards that the law provides.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Offences against the State Act, the special courts and so on, in the Republic of Ireland receive the same scrutiny and review as our legislation receives in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Patten: I am ashamed to say that I cannot answer specifically. I do not know what reviews, if any, are presently going on in the Parliament of another country. I know that there are also special regulations south of the border.
My right hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be an independent and free-standing inquiry has received a wide welcome from both sides of the House, from the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), speaking for the Opposition, from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) who, I am pleased to see, has made a great recovery and whose further contributions I look forward to hearing, and from the right hon. Member for Crosby. It has not been so welcomed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. We have to relate the timing of the inquiry, the establishment of the review and its schedule of work to the progress of Lord Jellicoe's review on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That seems to us sensible. I know that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, does not agree. The two reviews are related. The Emergency Provisions Act review will have, of necessity, to take account of the reasoning behind, and the conclusions drawn by Lord Jellicoe's review. I can give the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends who share similar doubts an assurance that we shall press ahead as quickly as possible in the light of these considerations.
I am unable to anticipate my right hon. Friend's announcement about the terms of reference and the form of the review. The right hon. Member for Mansfield will not be disappointed on either count when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement in the not too distant future. Some emergency legislation is likely to remain

995
necessary. That may be a starting point of the review. I equally expect that the terms of reference will provide [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has just arrived. Does he wish to make a substantial point?
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend allow me to make a point?
Mr. Patten: Perhaps I may finish this sentence. I was intending to return to my hon. Friend. I know how impatient he is. I have seen that expression on his face often recently. I always try to give way to him as quickly as possible. I expect the terms of reference to provide for as wide-ranging a review as that which the noble Lord Gardiner conducted. My right hon. Friend will aim to appoint about four members of a similar calibre.
Mr. Stanbrook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a point. When he mentions the appropriate sentences being awarded by the Diplock courts, perhaps he will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said about IRA criminals who, having been sentenced to between six and 10 years' imprisonment, come out after between three and five years after 50 per cent. remission and are able to continue their murderous activities. Will the review be able to consider a variation of sentencing policies and to include a recommendation that anyone who is convicted for a scheduled offence should be sentenced, not to a determinate sentence, but to imprisonment for as long as the emergency shall last? Does he agree that that would be an incentive, if not to the individuals concerned, to their relatives to hasten on the end of the emergency so that the prisoners may be released?
Mr. Patten: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's suggestions. As I have just said, the terms of reference have not been set. My hon. Friend made an interesting set of suggestions. May I reassure him on two points. First, no one who is convicted of murder gets 50 per cent. remission. Secondly, as most hon. Members know, that 50 per cent. remission must be earned. Moreover, when convicted terrorists are released they are on licence and may be recalled at any time if they are caught or suspected of being in the commission of crime.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield asked about powers of arrest under section 11. He asked one of those questions that is easy to ask and extremely difficult to answer. The committee of inquiry should address itself to that problem. There is no doubt about that.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield also asked whether it would be possible to de-schedule certain offences—offences that in his mind or that of other right hon. and hon. Members may no longer be regarded as necessarily of a terrorist type and can therefore be dropped. I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can already de-schedule an offence if he is satisfied that it is not a terrorist one and that the threat of intimidation of jury and witnesses is considered not to exist. That is a fail-safe provision. If we chose to remove particular offences from the schedule, it would automatically follow that there would be no option of trial in a Diplock court. That is a problem that the review will have to face with some care in its deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked earlier about the Government's
996
opinion of the level of co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda. Certainly, such co-operation is of very great importance. We believe that the two police forces north and south of the border which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, is so difficult to police, have established a high level of professional and close working relationships. Those relationships continue to produce a substantial number of arrests and finds of arms and ammunition on both sides of the border. A recent example was the finding by the Garda in Dundalk on 3 June of a substantial car bomb factory and related armaments.
Equally, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that the Government are in no doubt that we need to continue to develop our relationships with the Irish Government in terms of dealing with fugitive terrorist offenders. In the absence of an extradition at the moment, we must look to extraterritorial legislation which permits offenders to be prosecuted in one jurisdiction, as they have been recently, for offences committed in another. I am pleased to report that there are very encouraging signs that this is becoming much more effective than it has been in the past. Again, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the example of the six recaptured Belfast prison escapees who were convicted in Dublin by a court outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of offences connected with their escape and subsequently received 10-year prison sentences.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is in close touch with his Irish opposite number about resuming discussions on the very important way forward that must be followed in suppressing terrorism both north and south of the border.
Lastly, I come to the troubled subject of plastic baton rounds which was raised by the right hon. Member for Brent, East and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has lived in the eye of the storm in that tragic part of the city for so many years and whose fortitude under continuous and merciless attack and provocation on him and his family has shone out like a beacon in that troubled part of Belfast.
I am happy to report that figures for the use of plastic baton rounds in recent months show a downward trend. In March 1982, 40 plastic baton rounds were expended by the security forces in the Province. In April 1982, 30 rounds were expended, and in May 1982—the most up-to-date figure that I have—28 rounds were expended.
The use of an adequate level of force is a terrible dilemma for the security forces. Is it to be plastic or is it to be lead? Is it to be a high level of force or is it to be minimum force? I cited earlier the example of the young soldier killed in Londonderry by a child who threw a petrol bomb. The dilemma that continually faces the security forces in Northern Ireland cannot easily be solved by saying "Let us get rid of this or that form of arms".
These issues concerning the special provisions made in the Province to face up to terrorism under the emergency provisions legislation need to be closely examined by the review committee that is to be set up. Equally, in the meantime, I assure every hon. Member that the security forces will maintain their fight against terrorism in every part of the Province and they will not be deflected from that in the intervening months between now and when the review committee reports.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 19.

Division No. 254]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Ancram, Michael

Hannam, John

Arnold, Tom

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Aspinwall, Jack

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Blackburn, John

Kilfedder, James A.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Lang, Ian

Bright, Graham

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Brinton, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

Lyell, Nicholas

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

McCrindle, Robert

Buck, Antony

McCusker, H.

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Macfarlane, Neil

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

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

Major, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Marlow, Antony

Cope, John

Mather, Carol

Costain, Sir Albert

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Dorrell, Stephen

Mayhew, Patrick

Dover, Denshore

Mellor, David

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Eggar, Tim

Moate, Roger

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Molyneaux, James

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Murphy, Christopher

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Myles, David

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Neale, Gerrard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Needham, Richard

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Neubert, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Newton, Tony

Greenway, Harry

Normanton, Tom

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Onslow, Cranley

Gummer, John Selwyn

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Hamilton, Hon A.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Patten, John (Oxford)

998

Pattie, Geoffrey

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Penhaligon, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

Sproat, Iain

Prior, Rt Hon James

Stanbrook, Ivor

Proctor, K. Harvey

Stanley, John

Renton, Tim

Stevens, Martin

Rhodes James, Robert

Stradling Thomas, J.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Thompson, Donald

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Watson, John

Roper, John

Wells, Bowen

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Wheeler, John

Rossi, Hugh

Whitney, Raymond

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wickenden, Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilkinson, John

Silvester, Fred

Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Mr. Peter Brooke and

Speller, Tony

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

NOES

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Mikardo, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Parry, Robert

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Richardson, Jo

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Dubs, Alfred

Wigley, Dafydd

Fitt, Gerard

Flannery, Martin

Tellers for the Noes:

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Mr. Reg Race and

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

Mr. John Tilley.

Lamond, James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension)
11.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
The order extends the period of direct rule by 12 months until July 1983. It is the eighth such successive order, though this year it is presented to the House in circumstances which are rather different from usual. I shall not take the House through all the circumstances that make the presentation of the order different from usual because they were debated at length during the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill. Suffice it to say that it remains necessary to renew the direct rule provisions that provide that legislation that could have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly can instead be passed at Westminster by Order in Council, and that the executive responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State.
We have debated at length the circumstances in which any new Assembly for Northern Ireland, should the Bill come into operation, would be able to take back powers from this House. My hon. Friends will be glad to hear that. I shall not go into that tonight.
I commend the order to the House. The Government recognise both the strengths and the weaknesses of direct rule. Over the years it has secured a measure of acceptance in both parts of the community. Its impartiality is generally recognised and it has enabled the Northern Ireland Departments to discharge their duties efficiently. On the other hand, it has procedural and legislative inadequacies. But its main weakness is a political one—it does not meet the exceptional political needs of Northern Ireland. That is why the Northern Ireland Bill represents a positive and constructive attempt to respond to those needs.
If elected representatives in Northern Ireland can reach agreement on arrangements either for partial or full devolution acceptable to both sides of the community, the machinery of direct rule can, at the proper moment, whenever that might be, be brought to an end in respect of some or all Northern Ireland Departments.
Meanwhile, it is self-evident that the Government should seek to renew direct rule, even if, as I hope, the Bill is soon on the statute book. While the House and Ministers of this Government are responsible for the administration and legislation of Northern Ireland, I can assure Northern Ireland that we shall continue to exercise that responsibility with the vigour and respect that we owe to the people of Northern Ireland.
11.46 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not delay the House for long and the Opposition will not divide the House on the order.
We regard it as inevitable that direct rule from Westminster will have to continue for the time being. When it was introduced it was never intended to be permanent and many in the House, not least the Secretary of State, know far better than I of the numerous attempts that have been made to end it.
It is significant that various opinion polls taken in Northern Ireland demonstrate fairly clearly that direct rule
1000
is most people's second-best option. It has been greeted with a degree of acceptance, though various people would give priority to their first-choice options.
It is also clear that direct rule has helped with civil rights. Many improvements made in that area, by both Labour and Conservative Governments, have been to the advantage of the population in general. Some civil rights matters still need to be dealt with and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do that fairly soon.
There are areas where direct rule could be improved, particularly as regards the unelected area boards for education, planning, social services and so on. We could give some thought to elected representatives and perhaps trade unionists serving on the boards with some o f the existing councillors.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable and important observation on behalf of the Labour Party. Will he clarify it, because it concerns a matter to which many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats have given considerable thought?
When the hon. Gentleman refers to elected representation on health and education boards, does he mean elected persons belonging to other bodies, such as district councils, being seconded or appointed to the boards or does he have in mind the possibility of a system of at least partial direct election to the boards? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the significance of the matter and perhaps he will clarify his remarks.
Mr. Soley: I am always anxious to clarify matters for the right hon. Gentleman. It is good that he is not pursuing yet another plot or ploy. I welcome that.
The sort of thing that we are thinking of is that each area board could—I give this as an example—be made up of one-third Government appointees, one-third district councillors and perhaps councillors elected from those in the area, and one-third trade unionists elected through trade union machinery. There are other possibilities and structures that could be considered in that way. There should be none of the nightmares or panic stations that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce into the debate.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification, as far as it goes. He was speaking very fast and his words degenerated at one point, if I may say so, into a gabble. If I did not hear exactly what he said, perhaps he will forgive me for the lapse. He appeared to refer to an election from among elected representatives. Is he thinking of an election on top of an election, which would mean that persons would be elected to a district council and that then an election involving a group of such persons would be held to select those who would in part man the boards? I am sure that my hon. Friends will be as grateful as I am to know that the Labour Party is giving some thought to the democratising of the boards, which are badly in need of it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not begrudge us a little more clarification of the electoral processes that he has in mind.
Mr. Soley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I shall repeat it for him. Before doing so, may I say that I agree with him that there is a need to democratise the boar s? That is an area of agreement and I welcome it. I said that each area board could, for example, be made up of one-third Government appointees,

1001
one-third district councillors elected from councils within the area and one-third trade unionists elected, perhaps, through their own trade union procedures. That is one possible model. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understood that. If he did not, I suggest that he reads the official record in the morning.
Mr. Powell: I shall not be able to do that. I shall have to wait until Friday morning.
Mr. Soley: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it with me again, he can do so.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: In answering the question of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the hon. Gentleman appeared to be quoting verbatim from a document. It might be useful to know the source of the quotation so that we can read it ourselves.
Mr. Soley: I was not quoting verbatim, but it was close to it. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place for the previous debate—I do not criticise him for his absence as I know that he is frequently involved in Northern Ireland debates—he would realise that I have the Labour Party's policy statement in front of me.
I was glad when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) agreed that the area boards could be democratised because that is an essential part of the passage that I was summarising. If right hon. and hon. Members wish to have a copy of the policy statement, they will be able to obtain copies from the Labour Party's headquarters at a reasonable price. I recommend it as good reading. A great deal of work went into it by many committed people over a long period. If it had been given considerable attention and careful reading, it might have contributed to our recent debates on the Northern Ireland Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I referred to it in those debates.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that there should be a greater degree of democracy within the area boards. I am, however, confused by the hotch-potch that is set out in what the hon. Gentleman calls the Labour Party's policy document. How does it come anywhere near close to being democratisation of the area boards? It seems that it would be as bad a system as the present system of appointments made by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
Mr. Soley: I do not think that it would be as bad. It is a question of degree. We know that we shall not have a perfect democratic system in the short run. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Unionist parties are among the last who should give lectures on this subject. If the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will understand that it is one possible structure.
The important part of the aims of direct rule legislation is to bring together some of the attempts to link the communities in Northern Ireland. That is an important part of our policy. As our medium-term goal we must try to reach an understanding with the political leaders in Northern Ireland on the need for closer political co-operation between the parties. If we could achieve that either under direct rule or, as we hope, through the Secretary of State's Bill, we will be making significant progress, and we should all welcome that.
11.55 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: We in Northern Ireland have had direct rule for a considerable time. I make no apology for bringing the House back to consideration of the most important thing for any individual—the right to live. We have heard many criticisms in the House of what happened when Stormont was in existence, when Ulster's special constabulary held the border and protected the whole community, and when there was calm and peace in Northern Ireland.
The House needs to be reminded that in some days of direct rule more people have been murdered than in years under the Stormont Administration. The House needs to be reminded that in some hours under direct rule there have been more murders than in all the years of the Stormont Administration. Tonight, I thought that at long last we would hear from the Government Front Bench a firm and determined challenge to the present upsurge of IRA activity or any other terrorist activity whether it be from the so-called Loyalist community or the Roman Catholic or Protestant communities. I was saddened to think that tonight, from this House, the IRA was given a message from the Government Front Bench that the gloves would not be taken off and that action would not be taken to deal with the situation.
The people of Ulster are near to breaking point. Sections of a community cannot be mutilated and murdered without a breaking point being reached. The breaking point has almost been reached. We have had some sad and terrible happenings in Northern Ireland during the past few days. At the beginning of one week a police officer was blown up. That was followed by the shooting of a UDR soldier and the setting up in a Belfast street of a rocket launcher and an attack on a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station. An ex-officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a Roman Catholic, was murdered and a UDR officer had his legs blown off. All that happened in one week of activity. Surely the time has come when the gloves have to be taken off, and what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said must be faced up to, that the Republicans with the guns in their hands cannot and will not be appeased.
Many hon. Members talk about Southern Ireland, but they should read the history of the Irish Republic. If they did so they would find that when the Government were set up in Southern Ireland events similar to those in Northern Ireland at the moment were taking place. The irregulars led by De Valera were out to destroy the Government that had been elected. There then came to office a man by the name of Kevin O'Higgins. He realised that the only way to put down such a problem was to do so ruthlessly. There was no saying "Let us win the community from its allegiance to these people", because it had already been admitted by those who held that view that the community had no allegiance to those people. After all the bombings and killings, the people in Northern Ireland are told continually that they should outlaw the terrorists. The community cannot outlaw. Only the force of the Crown and the security forces can outlaw them.
There was a struggle in the South, which was successful. When the men of violence realised that they could not succeed, De Valera was prepared to go into politics rather than carry on that military war.
The House should remember that one of the terrible pages in Southern Ireland's history was the civil war, when

1003
the people fought one another and when the irregulars were doing what the IRA are doing in Northern Ireland now. The Government now must face up to this situation. Will they take on the Irish Republican Army and defeat it? The IRA must be defeated. There is no other way in which we shall have peace.
During the past months there was an event that was not headlined in the press. Three police vehicles moved into a farmstead on the border of Fermanagh. Into those vehicles a husband, wife and their family climbed. The police vehicles took those people to the ferry. They left Northern Ireland, probably for ever, to settle in Canada.
Why was that family, who had lived in Northern Ireland from the plantation days, driven from its home? Simply because, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, their allegiance was to the British Crown and to maintaining the Union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That family was driven out because all round them man after man, farmer after farmer was murdered. I sat in one of those homes with a group of men, who said that the next time I came to Fermanagh, I would be attending one of their funerals. I attended funerals of three of the men in that group. That is what happened and is happening.
We were told by the police, rightly so, that they could not defend us. What do people do then? The hon. Member for Armagh said that he found it difficult to speak to his constituents. If hon. Members' constituents said to them that they were in danger and that they had gone to the police, who said that they could not protect them, what would they advise those people to do? There is only one thing that they can do—defend themselves. That is what is happening and has to happen along the border. That is why, when a farmer is sowing his crops, his wife stands with his double-barrelled shotgun protecting him as he goes about his daily work. That is happening not somewhere outside the United Kingdom, but inside it.
We need to come down hard to the realities. Let no hon. Member think that there will not be serious killings and bombings in Northern Ireland. We had an example this past week. The bomb, which probably was one of about 1,000 lb, would have devastated the heart of Belfast. It devastated part of West Belfast because the security forces could not detonate it. Such bombings will continue. Business people who have never before been visited by the police have now been told that they, too, are in danger. That is what is happening under direct rule.
The IRA has taken off its gloves to the people of Northern Ireland. It does not obey a code of ethics in its bombing and killing. Members of the IRA kill people even when they are with their wife or child. They care not. But we are told that we should not take off our gloves to the IRA. The Government have a duty to face the challenge of the IRA, and anyone else who wishes to kill, with the resoluteness manifested by them in the Falkland Islands dispute. In Northern Ireland we live daily with death.
It has been said that the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone were disfranchised. They did that when the majority of them voted for their present representation. Although the representative does not come to the House, he gets special privileges on the roads of Fermanagh. A UDR detachment recently stopped his car and wished to search it. He told them that they could not search it as he was the Member of Parliament for the area. They held the car until the police came. The police officer apologised to
1004
him and told the UDR to let the car go and not to stop it in future. Such situations on the border bring security into contempt.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Armagh telling us that the Secretary of State had met a deputation of relatives of murdered people whom he brought along. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and me the same consideration for a case that we have before him. He is duty-bound to hear people whose friends and relatives have been murdered and who wish to make representations to him. He cannot hear everyone, but having heard the people from Armagh he should hear the people from County Tyrone
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) produced one document. A similar document was given to another man under threat. I did not hear a comment from the Government. The man's life is at risk and he is told officially to keep a dog that barks. When a man's life is in danger and the security forces cannot give him protection and he applies for a weapon to protect himself, that is denied. The authorities dilly-dallied over giving another young man personal protection, and we followed his funeral cortege to the grave. There are serious matters which the House and the Government must consider. I trust that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will tell us that there will be resoluteness in the fight against terrorism.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is not with us at the moment, said that the RUC was ordered to fire blanks in a certain situation lest there should be some sort of reaction. Since the European Parliament passed a resolution on the use of plastic bullets, they have not been used in Northern Ireland. Has an order been given to the RUC that because of world opinion those bullets are not to be used.?
If the plastic bullets had not been available at the time of the hunger strikes, there would have been a terrible situation. As the police have said very strongly to me, without those weapons with which to defend themselves they would be an easy prey to the petrol bombers. I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State wil tell us what orders are being given to the police in this respect.
I notice that we have not had any reply concerning the weapons which should have come from the United States of America.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): May I take this opportunity, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to deal with that point? There was not time to deal with it at the end of the previous debate. It is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government regret that the United States Government, for reasons of their own, felt unable to supply the further arms which had been ordered for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I assure the hon. Member, as I have assured the House on more than one occasion recently at Question Time, that the RUC is adequately armed and has all the guns for which the Chief Constable has asked.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We hear the President of the United States telling the world that he is dedicated to liberty and freedom, but when I took a strong stand on the issue I suffered by having my visa cancelled by the United States authorities. That was because I campaigned strongly that

1005
no more money should come from the United States of America for the terrorists. We have the President coming over here to tell us that he is the champion of freedom, yet the very arms that would be helpful in putting down terrorism have been refused by his Government. I wonder how strong the representations made by the British Government to the United States Government have been about those arms.
Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Member noticed that on several occasions I have asked the Government why, if the RUC is adequately armed, the order for the remainder of the arms still stands? Why has that order not been cancelled if the weapons are not needed?
Rev. Ian Paisley: My information is that the weapons are needed. It was a necessary consignment, and when the first allocation of the weapons arrived, training on them started. If further supplies of weapons have been refused by the United States Government, have the spare parts that are necessary for the maintenance of the weapons that were delivered been received? The first consignment of weapons will be useless if they cannot be maintained, and if the spares for them are not made available. The Government should come absolutely clean with the people of Northern Ireland on this issue.
Mr. John Patten: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to "come absolutely clean". I reiterate that the RUC is adequately armed, that all requests from the RUC for arms have been met, and that suitable sources of supply of alternative arms have been found for the RUC. But, quite properly, these are not matters which traditionally been discussed in any detail in this Chamber, because any such discussion could aid the terrorists. I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should discuss in detail the arming of the RUC.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an amazing statement, because the authorities made the statement about the arms being ordered. They made the statement, and they said that the arms were denied. Now the Minister tells me that I should not ask him about the tragic failure of a friendly nation to supply arms to put down terrorism, because it might give the terrorists some information. Everyone knows that the RUC did not get the arms.
I notice that the Minister did not come clean about the parts. The parts have not been obtained. I have inside information on the matter, as have other hon. Members who have been told by the police about their needs.
If the RUC has all the arms that it needs, why were the arms ordered? Why was there a fuss about their cancellation? The time has come when we must discover the truth. Not only should the RUC have arms, but it should be permitted to use them.
I trust that the Secretary of State will take on board the plea that has been made tonight to him by Northern Ireland Members. He spends quite a lot of time in the Province. No doubt, he has learnt that those of us who live there and mix among the people of Northern Ireland and live with these matters daily, realise just how hard pressed those people are.
What can we say of the coming weeks? Will there be a massive campaign of bombing? Probably there will. Will
1006
the people who have been warned by the police that they are in danger of being murdered be murdered? Is there not a case for the Government to say "We do not need some reactionary security measures to deal with the resurgence of the IRA. We need a new policy"? The present policy has not succeeded. The terrorists are still with us. The murders continue. When any of us go to the telephone to ring home, the first thing that we say to our loved ones is "What is the situation? Has anyone been murdered? Have any more bombs gone off?" That is what we have to live with, and that is only a reflection of what the ordinary people of Northern Ireland have to live with. They have massive trouble in employment, housing, health and social services, and so on, but piled on top of that is their desire to live.
I make a plea to the Government to take off the gloves, and let the IRA know that they are determined to put it down. Until that determination is seen, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) rightly said, we cannot convince those sections of the community that are under the threat of the gunmen. The IRA collects 50p from old-age pensioners in those areas. The IRA knows the income of all the houses. As the hon. Gentleman said, when someone appears at the door with a gun, one does not argue. One does what one is told.
That is the situation in Ulster. It is a terrifying and tragic situation. I trust that tonight we shall hear something from the Government. As I said in the closing debate on the Assembly, let no one think that the setting up of the Assembly will cure the security ills. Let no one think that it will even cure the economic ills. I plead with the Government to consider the agonised cry that comes from the people of Northern Ireland. I trust that we shall see a change in security policy. If there is confidence that all the weapons required are available, a drive should be made against the IRA. The IRA should not be allowed to make a drive against the security forces. Under direct rule, I trust that we shall see a new security policy that will give hope and confidence and create faith in the hearts of the people who live in Northern Ireland, who want to live there and who want to see a good future for their children.
12.20 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It might have been supposed that in passing from the biannual ritual of the renewal of emergency powers to the hardy perennial of the renewal of the temporary provisions Act we had left the scene of the subject of terrorism in Northern Ireland and what is called security. We have had a necessary reminder that the two cohere. There is no necessary dividing line between the two subjects.
I hope that the Secretary of State was attending to what was stated by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the specific statements made by the hon. Gentleman and that he will correct any impression that the RUC might be under that there is a privilege attached to hon. Members that renders them immune from any examination or procedures thought necessary for the purposes of security. I hope that this will be made clear in case there has been any misunderstanding in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
We are this year discussing the hardy perennial in novel conditions, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in his brief introduction. We come to the annual renewal of what is called direct rule with the minds of those hon. Members

1007
who have attended recent debates sharpened, instructed and prepared by the consideration of the contents of the unhappy Bill that went to the other place following the decision in the early hours of yesterday morning. We can now look with different eyes on the question of the renewal of the temporary provisions Act. On all previous occasions, when it has been renewed, there was no question but that my hon. Friends and I would support its renewal.
If it failed to be renewed, we would fall through the floor and find ourselves living under the 1973 or Heath Robinson constitution of Northern Ireland. But that is not now the choice. The difference between the 1973 constitution and the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, that has recently passed through this House, is, in some matters of principle, not very great. The principle of power-sharing, of widespread acceptance throughout the community of the arbitrary decision of a member of the Government, is common to both measures. Although there are portions of the Bill into which that provision is apparently not inscribed, we have a choice between the power-sharing constitution which the Province unmistakably rejected in 1974 and the power-sharing constitution that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to attempt to impose upon it by his new Bill. It is worth, in this changed environment, looking back at what is meant by direct rule as expressed in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, which we are invited to renew by this order.
When, in 1973, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was repealed, the legislative and administrative power in Northern Ireland—which had always lain with this House and with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom but whose exercise by the House and the Government had been in certain areas in suspense during the existence of the 1920 Act—reverted in full vigour to where they had always ultimately lain. Legislative authority in Northern Ireland, which had lain here exclusively before 1922 came back to this House and the administrative authority that had been exercised in Northern Ireland by the Government in the United Kingdom and by Ministers of that Government reverted to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom overtly and directly.
It might have been supposed that by the abolition of the home rule Act 1920 in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland had once again become legislatively and administratively in every sense an integral part of the United Kingdom. The temporary provisions Act of 1974 prevented that from happening in each of those two spheres. We ought to be clear exactly how and why it prevented it from happening.
I take the administrative sphere first. All the administrative powers that were exercised by the former Government of Northern Ireland passed into the hands of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. But there was a difference. There was a difference in administrative structure between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom which, by way of the temporary provisions Act, had a specific and undesirable effect. It so happened that just before the Government of Ireland Act 1920 ceased to exist, the Government of Northern Ireland had taken steps to absorb into its own direct powers, powers of administration hitherto exercised by elected local authorities in Northern Ireland. So the administrative powers that reverted to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom included not only the administrative powers that the Government exercised in
1008
the rest of the Kingdom but also those powers that, in the rest of the Kingdom, are exercised by elected local authorities.
That was an unintended consequence of the abolition of the 1920 Act. If the supposed local government reform that was recommended by the 1970 report and was effected in 1971–73 had, by some providence been deferred, under what is called direct rule, under the temporary provisions Act there would still be the local authorities in existence in Northern Ireland exercising their proper functions. I am certain that no Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom would, in the intervening period, have dreamt of withdrawing those powers. Because those powers had been transferred, however—before the end of Stormont—into the hands of the Stormont Administration and Parliament, they therefore fell into the maw of Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament, from which they have not since been disgorged. That, then, is one of the differences between what is called direct rule, the effect of the temporary provisions Act and the regime under which, happily or less happily, the rest of the United Kingdom lives and which it does not describe as living under direct rule.
The other compartment is the legislative compartment. As I mentioned earlier, before 1920 the law in Northern Ireland was made by this House. This House enacted all law for Northern Ireland—there was no other legislative power in existence—and it would have been perfectly possible for that to have revived automatically when the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was repealed.
The 1974 Act was passed in order to prevent that from happening—to prevent the full resumption by this House of the powers of legislation for Northern Ireland which had existed up to 1922. The 1974 Act created a system of legislation by Order in Council and subordinate instrument which was to be used, and has been used, where the subject of legislation was a subject that had been within the legislative competence of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland. Hence, the second and only other factual technical difference between direct rule in Northern Ireland today and the form of government of the rest of the United Kingdom—that in addition to direct legislation by this House, as before 1922, Her Majesty's Government legislate, subject in some cases to the decision of this House, by order or by Order in Council.
Why did the Government in 1974 trouble to do that? Why did they not allow the automatic consequences of the repeal of the 1920 Act to follow—namely, that this House would legislate for Northern Ireland as for any other part of the United Kingdom? I am not sure that they envisaged the inconvenience that they were entailing upon hon. Members—inconveniences of which the present debate happens not to be an example, as in approving this Order in Council tonight we are legislating under a United Kingdom Act. They probably did not foresee the consequences—and many blessings would have been gained if the Chief Whip of the day had been more sharp-sighted and had seen the consequences for his Department of the decision expressed by the 1974 Act—of the decision to continue to legislate separately for Northern Ireland in all those compartments that had been within the competence of the former legislature of Northern Ireland, and to do that by Order in Council.
For very shame, this House did not dare to allow the Secretary of State to legislate without the control of this House. At any rate, therefore, matters that would have

1009
been dealt with by statute in the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been dealt with in this House—or in Committees of this House, but normally in this House—by debating for an hour and a half or so an Order in Council.
I ask again, why was this contortion undergone by the 1974 Act? It was done in order to keep a separate Northern Ireland statute book—that was the technical phrase—so that the series of legislative Acts of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland should continue along the shelf in the same coloured bindings and the same style of production as a subordinate but separate series of statutes with their own separate numeration.
I shall inquire in a moment why that step was taken, but before doing so I want to refer to the major non-technical difference between what we in Northern Ireland call direct rule, under which, by virtue of the 1974 Act we live, and the constitution under which our fellow citizens in the rest of the Kingdom live. Besides the two differences—the unintended one that we do not have local government, at least not to speak of, and the intended one, that we are largely legislated for by order and not by Act of Parliament—there is a political difference not to be found anywhere in statute or mentioned in the 1974 Act but in many ways more important than the other two.
In Northern Ireland the question that since 1920 has dominated, and has continued to dominate since 1972, all other political questions is the Union—to be or not to be—with the United Kingdom. As long as that remains the overriding political difference, there cannot flourish those other and subordinate differences of political opinion and aspirations that are embodied by the political parties in the rest of the kingdom.
That difference has a profound effect on the relationship between subject and Government. The balance between pro and anti-Union in Northern Ireland is not likely to change any more appreciably than the balance between Socialist and anti-Socialist in county Durham or, possibly, the balance between Conservative and non-Conservative in Hampshire. My argument would still be valid even if by some political revolution there might be a Tory Member somewhere in county Durham or a Socialist Member—I think there has been on rare occasions—in Hampshire. Nevertheless, the House takes my point.
Although locally we may realise that we shall be represented by one party or another virtually in perpetuity whether or not we like that party, the rest of the kingdom can say "Never mind, that party of that colour for which I do not vote in county Durham may be forming the Government today, but just you wait for a year or two until the general election comes and we shall see those perishers off and there will be installed in Whitehall a Government resting upon a majority which is to our taste." That is why the inhabitants of most parts of the United Kingdom, where a change in political representation is not foreseeable, do not feel as if they are living under a regime upon which they can exercise no influence. The party structure is a national party structure, common to the whole of Great Britain. Every person, therefore, wherever in Great Britain he lives and votes, is caught up in the party system. Through that party system, he exercises, in so far as in him lies, influence, with all his other fellow citizens, on the Government of this country.
1010
That is not the case in Northern Ireland, dividing as it does on a different issue from that on which the rest of the United Kingdom politically divides, and it is thereby insulated or exiled from the political system that is the party system of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is the third, biggest and most significant difference; the least analysed and most severely felt, difference between the Province and the rest of the kingdom.
Having for the sake of completeness, although it will reappear, recorded that third, significant psychological element in direct rule, let me revert to my question—why the 1974 Act? Why was the 1974 Act passed to preserve separate legislation for Northern Ireland in the absence of a Northern Ireland Parliament? We all know the answer. It is because from the moment that Stormont was suspended in 1972, one Government after another of the United Kingdom professed their intention to restore something like, and something described by the same name as, that which they had suspended, and after 1973, had destroyed.
That is a paradox, and a remarkable fact, which should be seen to be more remarkable than even those of us who were in the thick of the debate of those years perceived it to be. I confess that I never sufficiently rigorously asked myself the question—why do one Government after another, not just a particular Government but a whole series of them, have this in common, in whatever else they differ? They all say that they want Northern Ireland to be governed, not quite as it was between 1922 and 1972, but differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and under some form of devolution other than administrative devolution—legislative devolution.
That principle is common to them all, and that is the reason why we have tonight before us an order to renew the Act which kept Northern Ireland in that artificial situation.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to accept that Governments in Westminster, when looking at the Government of Northern Ireland have been faced by the political parties in Northern Ireland, each one of which has expressed the ambition to have a devolved Government? Therefore, would it not follow that if the Government were to deny the parties of Northern Ireland the right to have a measure of devolution, the Government of Westminster would be dictating to the Province in a way that the parties in Northern Ireland might resent deeply?
Mr. Powell: It is a most attractive theory that the explanation for this persistent behaviour on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom was a desire to fall in with the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, even though when they examined those wishes they would find them to be mutually contradictory, although covered by the same word. The hon. Gentleman has made a try.
I resorted to hypotheses that were almost as far-fetched when I contemplated, during these years, this extraordinary phenomenon of one Government after another doing this paradoxical thing of keeping open the foundation of the very structure that differentiated Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I took part in the debates and voted against the abolition of Stormont in 1972. With hindsight, perhaps it is noteworthy that

1011
Westminster was responding to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, but only of the minority community, and particularly of the Irish Republican Army one of whose objectives was the destruction of Stormont.
Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Member was more clear-sighted than I at the time. Although I voted against the abolition of Stormont, I did so on the ground that I saw no evidence of any thought about what was to replace it, or any logical intention such as we have explored in the Chamber this evening. I was not prepared to destroy one system of government unless I was told what was intended to take its place. That was why I went into the Lobby against it. I do not repent having gone into that Lobby, any more than the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
In recent years the means of arriving at the solution to the conundrum has been placed in our hands. Increasingly, as the events of the last two years have evolved, the motivation has become clear. It has been a motivation which has operated consistently upon all Governments since the Home Office ceased to be the relevant Department for Northern Ireland and since the Foreign Office became the effective Department for Northern Ireland in 1972. The Under-Secretary appears to be a little puzzled by that statement. If he is not, I shall not waste the time of the House by explaining what he already understands. If he is puzzled, he should make an inquiry—I am sure that it can be dealt with in his Department—and he will understand what I meant by my reference to the Foreign Office.
Mr. John Patten: I am not puzzled but a little bemused. I can remember the Prime Minister inviting me to join her Administration as an Under-Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office. I always understood that to be the Department of State responsible for Northern Ireland and administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Powell: In that case, the Under-Secretary could benefit from a little enlightenment. As long as the Home Office was the responsible Department for Northern Ireland, it was primarily Home Office concerns with which the Home Office was bothered—the external relations between Northern Ireland under the 1920 constitution and the rest of the United Kingdom and common matter such as drugs, crime, fugitive offenders and the rest of that ilk. But create a new and separate Department of Government and it becomes a Department which deals with external affairs which at last gets the deciding voice in the affairs of Northern Ireland, by a comparable logic to that which gives the Treasury the deciding voice between the other Government Departments when expenditure is involved.
The Under-Secretary might have been a little puzzled at the fact of which he knows well—that Cabinet decisions concerning the Northern Ireland Bill were taken not by the Home Affairs or Constitutional Committee of the Cabinet but by the Overseas and Defence Committee. It was treated, as it has been treated over the years, as a matter of external affairs in which the dominant Department was, and is necessarily, the Foreign Office.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the House for a digression which was intended for the benefit
1012
of the Under-Secretary. As he happens to serve in the subordinate Department, it seemed unfair to deny him at least a gleam of enlightenment.
To abbreviate what might otherwise be an even longer and—who knows?—even more instructive discourse, I should like, in putting forward to the House my solution to the conundrum "Why the 1974 Act and why, therefore, the order?", to revert to the Conservative Party's election policy for Northern Ireland, of which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) reminded us at an early stage in the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—it seems a long time ago.
The Conservatives said:
"A Conservative Government would seek to establish a regional council or councils with control over specifically local matters, which are not at the moment subject to any effective democratic scrutiny as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom."
The Conservative Party went on:
"We do not believe that a more ambitious scheme to devolve executive and legislative power to Northern Ireland would be successful in present conditions. In our view the talk of recreating political stability"—
have we heard that phrase lately?—
"should begin fairly modestly with the establishment of a new framework of local government which the Province has lacked during the last few years."
There was what one might have thought was the logical conclusion from the events of 1972—even if we were to continue legislating in a peculiar fashion on Northern Ireland it would at least be rendered administratively homogeneous and we would be given the same administrative democratic opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was astonishing that from the moment of entering office the Conservative Government behaved like all the previous Governments since 1972. They threw overboard what they said and started to talk about more ambitious schemes of administrative and legislative devolution.
I am sorry if I am trenching on the time in which we might hope to hear from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). I will bear that in mind as I hasten to my close, because the hon. Member and I have been conducting in recent weeks, if not a duet, at any rate a sort of dialogue of which this debate ought fittingly to be a continuation.
What happened to the Conservatives when they came to Office? Who nobbled them? Who sandbagged them? Who put a bag over the head of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) as soon as he walked into the Northern Ireland Office, snatched away the policy to which the Conservative Party was committed and substituted the same old policy, for the purposes of which the 1974 Act was devised—the same policy, one might say for the sake of brevity, that we find, in a modern edition but still recognisable, in the Northern Ireland Bill?
So there was a more acute problem with which observers such as ourselves were faced in the past three years. There was an intensification of the paradox and the puzzle of the years since 1970. What hit the Conservatives?
By ill luck, it was only in the later stages of our deliberations on the Northern Ireland Bill—the day before yesterday—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made an important statement. A piece of grit is necessary to produce a pearl and if the pearl produced by the right hon. Gentleman was the result of some gritty, irritating

1013
matter than I had served up to him in the debate, perhaps I should not apologise too abjectly, as he suggested, for having done that.
Having repudiated any suggestion that there were—I hardly dare to quote the words—undertakings given to the Irish Government over the constitutional future of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State said:
"There are no such undertakings at all."
What about the other reason for departing from the policy of the Government, that we would automatically lose the co-operation that we are getting from the Irish Government over border security? The right hon. Gentleman took a different attitude on that. He said:
"With regard to the accusation that Mr. Haughey said that he did not like local government reform … I do not need Mr. Haughey to tell me that. The nationalists and a good many others can tell me that, and they have done so."
He continued:
"Where a State has a land border with another State, and where we have had so much trouble with security, it is not necessarily wrong to take the views of that other State into consideration when considering the importance of security aspects. We would be extremely negligent if we did not do so. On that point there is no problem."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 788–9.]
On that point, observe that the right hon. Gentleman was not talking about taking the views of that other State on police matters into consideration. He was talking about taking the views of that other State on constitutional matters into consideration. He was saying that when there is a hostile country on the other side of the boundary which is forming the base, and providing the inviolable base for the terrorist attack on Northern Ireland, one has to take the views of that other State into consideration.
Could it be that when the new Government came into office in 1979 those who met them and took them in kindly said "We are sorry to have to tell you, but if you do what was in your manifesto you will not get co-operation on security from the Irish Republic. So, in the interests of security and in order to avoid further outrages such as those which have been recently committed, you had better not engage upon a constitutional course, namely, the candid declaration and establishment of the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, you had better at least appear to be making political progress, which is what the people on the other side of that border are always wanting. You and we both know, don't we, Secretary of State, what they mean by political progress?"
Mr. Prior rose—
Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to tell me that I am wrong again.
Mr. Prior: I thought that tonight, for once, the right hon. Gentleman might apologise for the remarks he made yesterday.
Mr. Powell: The Secretary of State is not rising to the occasion.
Mr. Prior: If I am not rising to the occasion it is certain that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing of the sort in the past 24 hours.
Mr. Powell: That is mere childishness. The Secretary of State is unwilling to face the fact that there is a major constitutional issue here, which he has never understood. The behaviour of successive United Kingdom
1014
Governments since 1970 calls for an explanation which has never intelligibly been rendered. The right hon. Gentleman never gave an intelligible explanation throughout the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Bill why he and his predecessor departed from the promises to which they were committed when they came into office, and from which it was prophesied they would depart under certain influences and pressures.
Mr. Prior: I do not need to use deceitful arguments that are quite untrue and used to involve others who have no ability to defend themselves.
Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman and I will be judged by the events. We shall be judged by what will subsequently appear.
Mr. Prior: We shall be judged by what happens.
Mr. Powell: No. We shall be judged also by what will happen. In these past days we have learnt at last why it is that Northern Ireland, by the 1974 Act is to be kept separate, and over again, when the chance occurs, to be forced into formal separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is because Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are being blackmailed by the Irish Republic, which says "Either you show political progress in constitutional matters in the direction that we want or else we shall turn the screw as we have the power to do. We have the power from out territory, inviolable to you, to maintain, intensify and modulate the terrorist attack upon this Province."
Mr. Peter Robinson: There is only one piece that does not fit into the jigsaw. If the conspiracy theory is correct, surely the Republic of Ireland's Government would have been in favour of the Northern Ireland Bill. In fact, they are against it.
Mr. Powell: No, that will not wash. When someone is getting his way he does not say "That is splendid, old chap. Thank you very much." No, he says "You are not doing enough yet. This is not enough. Faster, faster." That is what Haughey is saying to the Government.
When one is faced by a blackmailer, as Her Majesty's Government have been faced by the blackmail of the Irish Republic, backed by the United States, during the past 10 years, there is the choice of giving in to blackmail, which is what the Government did, or of defying the blackmailer, which the Government were told was a course too dangerous to take, and from which they therefore shrank back.
Mrs. Shirley Williams rose—
Mr. Powell: No. I cannot give way any more. I must conclude now.
Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has not given way very much.
Mr. Powell: I have given way continuously. I gave way even before the right hon. Lady entered the Chamber.
We are seeing Northern Ireland receiving—it will continue to receive—the consequences of Her Majesty's Government bowing to blackmail, for one never gains safety by attempting to buy off the blackmailer. The only result is that he continues with his blackmail. Look back over the past few years to the series of points at which the screw has been tightened on Her Majesty's Government.

1015
The Government have been pushed forward into further endeavours to force upon the Province inexplicable and unwanted arrangements.
The Secretary of State, more determined than his predecessors, has brought them as far as a Bill, and even that has been pushed through the House. This is the link between constitution and security. As long as the House and as long as British Governments are seen to be legislating and administering for Northern Ireland in such a way as to deny the integral status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, so long there will be no answer to the terrorist attack upon the Northern Ireland and upon the United Kingdom. The blame lies, ultimately, not even with the Government but with the House, which in the last resort is, or should be, the master of legislation and the master of administration.
1.4 am
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall make only one point so that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can reply to the debate.
My point concerns the position of the minority, which has been so much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his complicated plan for rolling devloution. At the beginning of the nineteenth century Catholics of all Ireland were eager for the parliamentary union because that was to free them from rule by what was then truly a Protestant Parliament for the Protestant people. I ask the Secretary of State not to dwell overmuch, as he has in recent debates, on the half century of legislative devolution in Northern Ireland, but to consider the century or more of legislative union, which the Unionists of the day wished to continue at the time of partition. Whether it was Ireland or whether it is Northern Ireland, the rights of the minority are safest under the aegis of this one Parliament here at Westminister. That is the lesson of Stormont.
1.6 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): In the five minutes that remain unexpended in the debate, I shall address myself closely to the order in a technical and rather pragmatic way. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I fulfil that necessary task in commending the order to the House. Without the order, the government of Northern Ireland would collapse. The £3·6 billion that is being spent in the current year could not be spent there. There could be no public expenditure, which is 35 per cent. more in Northern Ireland than it is on this side of the water. The soldiers and the security forces could not be there. The better government of Northern Ireland could not be carried out by Her Majesty's Government under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Therefore, this is a critically important order for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, and government there could not be sustained without it. It is vital to renew direct rule for a further year. I wish to give one or two assurances to the House about what is likely to happen
1016
while direct rule continues before partial or full devolution to a Northern Ireland Assembly takes place should the Northern Ireland Bill pass into law, as I hope it will.
I assure the House that the Government will continue to do all that they can to make direct rule in Northern Ireland as efficient, imaginative and effective as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) will share in that. In his speech he welcomed the fact that direct rule makes it possible for advances to be made, perhaps more quickly than otherwise, in human rights, although I know that he shares the reservations of a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the spread of democracy through appointed boards in the Province.
I should like to outline some of the considerable progress that we have made in recent months and years towards the better government of Northern Ireland by a thorough-going and deep-seated review of the conduct of the government of the Province under direct rule. First, we recently amalgamated the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service to form a new Department, to be called—unimaginatively perhaps, but accurately—the Department of Finance and Personnel. That new Department is beginning to function extremely well.
Secondly, less than a week ago, under an order passed in the House, there was the merger of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Manpower Services to form the Department of Economic Development, which we hope will come into full effect in the autumn of this year. Both developments are part of our attempt to rationalise and streamline the Northern Ireland Departments. There are now six.
Northern Ireland Office Ministers spend a good deal of time out and about in Northern Ireland. We devote particular attention to representations from hon. Members as well as to those from local councillors and particular interest groups. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), who travels ceaselessly to help to further the welfare and commerce of the Province from his constituency, the House, Northern Ireland and all points of the compass. Equally, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), ceaselessly travels the Province talking to councillors.
I hope that in those ways the Government are demonstrating their continued devotion to the better government of Northern Ireland while direct rule continues, although it is the Government's view that direct rule is an imperfect instrument and that it should be brought to end as quickly as possible. That view is, I believe, shared by all political parties in the Province—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Public Bodies (Female Appointments)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
1.11 am
Miss Joan Lestor: When the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were passed there was hope among many women and the men who supported the legislation that we would gradually see the end of inequality in opportunities and the representation of women in various ways.
The Government have a direct responsibility for appointments to public bodies. After a great deal of research into the appointments of women on public bodies, I decided to seek this Adjournment debate to put the facts before the House. For many years Governments have not measured up to the spirit in the country and the ideas behind the two Acts that, wherever possible, women should be given equality with men.
Secretaries of State could make a significant contribution to redress the imbalance. Ministries and the Government generally can make about 14,000 appointments to public bodies, but since 1977 the change has been minimal. Only 23 per cent. of current appointments are held by women. That is only a 4 per cent. increase since 1977. Only 18 per cent. of the names on the list of public appointments units are women's.
A recent survey by the Equal Opportunities Commission of 874 public bodies found that 304 had no women members and 159 had only one woman serving on each. From answers to parliamentary questions that I have put down it appears that in 1981 the Department of Industry appointed 89 men and only one woman. The Department of Education and Science, in which a large number of women are employed, appointed 46 men and four women. The Department of Transport appointed 83 men and four women. The Department of Energy appointed 78 men and two women. The Department of the Environment appointed 148 men and 27 women. The Welsh Office appointed 107 men and 16 women. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a little coy about providing the information. The Department of Employment appointed 350 men and 66 women. I have not been able to get figures from the Scottish Office. The Department of Trade appointed 306 men and 152 women, so it is doing very well, as is the Home Office, which appointed 364 men and 153 women.
Some of those figures are deplorable. The Department of Energy, I understand, has appointed no women to its nationalised energy boards. The Department of the Environment has appointed no women to the Housing Corporation or to the national park committees and other bodies.
To be fair, some ministries are at least concerned about the need to appoint more women. The Department of Employment has said that women should play a much greater part in public work, and the Welsh Office has made similar statements. Unfortunately, those are not matched by any particular action.
One of the difficulties—the Minister will probably refer to it—is in attracting women to come forward, but the present system and the way it is geared is not making it easy for women. It is particularly geared to a male life style. Meetings of boards are often in the evenings, which precludes many women with children, particularly
1018
working women, from attending. Women serving on public bodies cannot claim child minding fees as a justifiable expense. I have always thought that that was wrong in the House of Commons. It makes life very difficult for women who might want to serve on public bodies.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, appointments can come from a variety of sources, which need not be disclosed, such as personal contact and recommendations. That may preclude women, who are not generally part of what is often known as the "old boy network". Some of us would like to see an "old girl network", so that women might be given greater opportunities.
Only a limited number of appointments come from the public appointments list—perhaps 18 or 20 per cent. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the number of women on the list. Unless the current secrecy about the list is lifted, its effectiveness, or lack of it, will not be ascertained. I believe that it is impossible to ask parliamentary questions about the list and its working.
The criteria of appointment are not made known. The Department of Energy says that
"appointments are to be made from people with experience in industry, finance and administration".
Because women do not have that experience on any large scale, such criteria effectively exclude them. However, one could argue that many women who run a home are running a company single-handed; they are likely to be managing director, accountant and production director rolled into one.
The Department of Industry says that
"there are far too few women with relevant experience at senior level".
But if we continue to apply that standard to the appointment of women to public bodies, women will go on being excluded for many years. I should have thought that it was reasonable to accept experience at middle and low management levels as equally valid. Why should "relevant experience" be the sole preserve of those who are at the top and who, generally speaking, because of the way in which our society has worked in the past, tend to be men?
The Department of Employment is concerned with the question of merit alone, and because women are so massively under-represented, it may be that it is a very limited use of the word "merit", but that seems to be the criterion applied. In other words, it does not take into account the contribution of many women—the consumer and lay view, which may bring a new and different experience to the work of public bodies.
The Department of Transport, which appointed one woman last year, is a particularly good example, given that the great majority of those who rely on public transport, particularly during the day, are women. They could make a contribution to a public body of this nature from quite a different point of view.
It would be useful, therefore, to have an advisory body which was concerned with the promotion of women in public life, and to advise on the setting of targets by Government Departments. I know that the precedent for this was established by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which said that those appointed to the Scottish children's panel must represent a ratio of men to women which approximates to that in the general population. That is a good guideline. If that were applied to other Ministries, we might begin to make some progress.

1019
An example of where targets could be set is the medical appeals tribunals. Women represent 21·5 per cent. of the membership of the BMA. We could go for the same representation on the medical appeals tribunals. The same could apply to law.
I should like targets to be set and progress monitored, so that where women are obviously under-represented, additional measures to attract women could be considered—for example, in advertising, and in magazines that are more likely to be read by women than men. That would help to overcome the present imbalance, particularly in Ministries. Some Ministries such as the Home Office have a reasonably good record, and others could do well to follow their example. Ministers and Secretaries of State should actively encourage the use of the public appointments list, and ensure that more women are put on that list, and that women are encouraged to come forward.
The criteria for appointments should be published and clarified. That would give the Secretary of State and civil servants an opportunity to reassess what is relevant experience. In many industries, job evaluation schemes are being changed in that respect. That would open the way for a greater understanding by the public of what may be demanded of people going on to public bodies. We know that there is great interchange between one public body and another. The Equal Opportunities Commission spoke of
"a stage army of quango members who continue to circulate from one public body to another".
There is an element of truth in that. We want more people generally on public bodies, but particularly women, who have been pretty well excluded. The Government, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, have not measured up to what was expected by the passing of the two Acts that I mentioned.
There has never been a time in the history of this country since the suffragette movement and the gaining of the vote by women, when women have been so active and so concerned with equality and getting themselves accepted as full participants in society at every level. The Government can make a sizeable contribution in ensuring that women are given opportunities in this way, but they have not measured up to the task. I hope that tonight the Minister will take on board what I have said and do his best to ensure that if there is a review of the matter in a year's time, we shall see a marked improvement in women's representation on public bodies.
1.24 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for bringing to the attention of the House the question of women's appointments to public bodies. I doubt if there are many who need to be reminded of the important role that women can and do already play in many instances in all aspects of public life. It is a subject well worth airing in the House.
In general terms, the responsibility for appointment to public bodies rests with departmental Ministers who seek recommendations from a wide variety of sources—other Ministers and hon. Members, Government Departments, the public appointments unit in the Management and Personnel Office, representative organisations and last, but by no means least, from members of the public. I should like to say more in a few moments about the way
1020
in which this process can be improved with a view to securing greater representation of women on public bodies.
At this stage, I emphasise the importance that the Government and I attach to seeing that the high potential contribution that can be made by women serving in public appointments is not wasted. I am at one with the hon. Lady in saying that there is plainly a degree of wastage of that potential. No one suggests that there should be an exact proportional representation. But the disparities to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention suggest that there is a wastage of potential. It follows that we must always go for merit and not simply look to the sex. We must look to the quality of the individual. That must greatly depend upon qualifications and experience.
The hon. Lady drew attention to the figures produced by Government Departments and published by the Equal Opportunities Commission. These figures indicate that while there have been some increases over the past five years in the number of women appointed to public bodies, they are still under—represented in some areas of public life. She has quoted figures, some of which may, at first sight, suggest that women have been overlooked in the appointments procedure. I do not believe that to have been the case.
There must inevitably be public bodies whose membership has to be drawn from candidates with special knowledge or qualifications. In some cases, women will be favoured as a result. But in many more, it will be men who are appointed on the basis of their particular qualifications and experience. Until we achieve full equality of opportunity for men and women in all spheres of activity, that state of affairs is bound to continue I take the point made by the hon. Lady that it is no good saying "You have not got the experience" if one does not give to people the opportunity to acquire the experience in the first place.
But the picture of public appointments in the EOC's annual report is by no means one of failure on the part of this Government to appoint more women. It is heartening to be able to record that since this Government took office, the proportion of women appointed to public bodies has increased. Women now comprise 23 per cent. of all appointees. It was 17·6 per cent. in 1977, 19·5 per cent. in 1978 and 22 per cent. in 1979. I accept that the increase has been a gradual one, and that there is no cause for complacency in the figures, but it is a trend in the right direction. I am pleased that my Department, as the hon. Lady has fairly acknowledged, heads what might be termed a league table of Government Departments with women occupying 30 per cent. of the appointments to those bodies for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility.
The Government are firmly committed to a policy of equal opportunities for women, and are fully aware of the need to increase the numbers of women appointed. But that, in turn, demands an increase, in terms of quantity and quality, in the number of women willing to come forward to participate in public life. The public appointments unit, which has the responsibility, when asked, for suggesting to Ministers candidates for public appointments, is anxious to know of suitable women. To date, women represent about 16 per cent. of the total number of people on the unit's register of those regarded as suitable for public

1021
work. That is encouraging, given the small number of women who, through their work and other interests, enter the areas from which candidates are likely to be chosen.
The unit is certainly taking positive steps to improve the position. Since July last year, when an article in The Guardian specifically asked women to come forward, more than 100 women have expressed interest. During the past two years the unit has been actively encouraging representative organisations to recommend women. Some 13 women's organisations have been approached, resulting in 39 recommendations, while a further 135 women have come forward as a result of recommendations from organisations with both male and female membership.
Getting on to the central list, or any list from which candidates are selected is, of course, only the first step. The second step is to be selected from that list to be recommended to Ministers. I assure the hon. Lady that no opportunity of putting forward qualified women is knowingly missed.
Although there are many women who have shown an interest in public appointments and have not so far been asked to serve on a public body, to improve on the 16 per cent. already quoted, the public appointments unit would be glad to hear of other suitable women whose names might be added, to give Ministers a wider selection of names to choose from when they are considering making appointments.
The hon. Lady referred to secrecy about the relevant criteria. I am not aware of any. In case there is doubt about what constitutes suitability, the sort of people who might be expected to be appointed are those who have a general ability to analyse problems, to assess evidence impartially and to contribute effectively to group discussion, with a reasonably wide range of interests and experience, including some experience of committee work at a fairly high level, and an ability to apply the knowledge and experience that they have gained in one area to another specific area or to general problems.
The public appointments unit would be glad to hear from anyone, female or male, who feels that he or someone he knows meets those general requirements. I can assure the hon. Lady that my colleagues and I will
1022
continue to take account of the need for public bodies to represent fully and with equality, if that is possible, all sections of the community.
It is sometimes suggested that we should ensure that every public body has at least one woman appointed to it. It is our impression that women and women's organisations would not thank any Minister for appointing "the statutory woman". I know that the hon. Lady did not suggest that. I rather imagine that we have moved beyond that concept. As to the possible suggestion that we should consider increasing the number of women on public bodies by issuing an edict that a percentage of the membership of every board, committee or commission or whatever to which Ministers make appointments should be female, I believe that that would be regarded as an insult to the women of this country who believe that they have a good claim on their own merits. In any event, quotas could themselves be unacceptably discriminatory if any attempt deliberately to achieve or maintain a given balance led to a refusal to appoint an individual because of his or her sex. The possibility of adopting targets for such appointments raises rather different considerations. It creates the danger that, should strenuous efforts be made to meet specific targets, the standard of quality may be sacrificed in favour of quantity and that, in the long term, would not be helpful to the women's cause.
I have spoken about some of the problems that we face in identifying suitable women to serve on public bodies and of the measures that we are taking to invite women to come forward. I cannot pretend that dramatic improvements will be achieved overnight or indeed in the next year. As part of our policy of promoting equal opportunities for women, we shall do what we can to improve upon the present position and to ensure that women are given every opportunity to take their place as members, and chairmen, of public bodies.
I say that not simply out of a sense of fairness and what is fitting towards women but out of a sense that the public interest requires the potential that women have to serve the nation in these important positions and which at present, not to a precisely measurable extent but to some significant extent, is being wasted. It is in the interests of the country as well as of women as a sex that that wastage should be remedied.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Two o' clock.

TRADE
  Industrial Counterfeiting
  Industrial Counterfeiting
  Anti-dumping Applications
  Anti-dumping Applications
  Commodities (Common Fund)
  Commodities (Common Fund)
  Iron and Steel Levy
  Iron and Steel Levy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Exemption)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Exemption)
  Wick Airport (Customs)
  Wick Airport (Customs)
ENERGY
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hill Farmers
  Hill Farmers
  Non-Alcoholic Drinks
  Non-Alcoholic Drinks
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Council of Agriculture Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers (Meeting)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Obscene Publications Act (Prosecutions)
  Obscene Publications Act (Prosecutions)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
  Parliamentary and Local Authority Candidates (Age)
  Parliamentary and Local Authority Candidates (Age)
  Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1973
  Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1973
  Returning Officers and Clerks
  Returning Officers and Clerks
  Police (Consultation Circular)
  Police (Consultation Circular)
  Highpoint Prison
  Highpoint Prison
  Police (Accident Insurance)
  Police (Accident Insurance)
  Public Disorder (Research)
  Public Disorder (Research)
PRIME MINISTER
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Falklands Operation (Chinese Seamen)
  Falklands Operation (Chinese Seamen)
  Public Sector Pay
  Public Sector Pay
INDUSTRY
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  Ethnic Minorities (Business Assistance)
  Ethnic Minorities (Business Assistance)
  Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments)
  Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Provision of Information to Employees
  Provision of Information to Employees
WALES
  Foreign-owned Industry
  Foreign-owned Industry
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  "Annual Review of Agriculture"
  "Annual Review of Agriculture"
  Farmers (Incomes)
  Farmers (Incomes)
  Wool Production
  Wool Production
  Unemployment Statistics (Construction Industry)
  Unemployment Statistics (Construction Industry)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Developing Countries (Aid)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Wigs and Gowns
  Wigs and Gowns
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
  Wills
  Wills
SOCIAL SERVICES
  General Practices (Nurses)
  General Practices (Nurses)
  Single-handed General Practices
  Single-handed General Practices
  General Practice Premises (Insurance)
  General Practice Premises (Insurance)
  General Practitioners (Access to Patients)
  General Practitioners (Access to Patients)
  Social and Health Workers (Joint Premises)
  Social and Health Workers (Joint Premises)
  Primary Health Care Planning Teams
  Primary Health Care Planning Teams
  Infants (Intensive Care)
  Infants (Intensive Care)
  South Lincolnshire (Health Authority Headquarters)
  South Lincolnshire (Health Authority Headquarters)
  Children (Community Homes)
  Children (Community Homes)
  National Health Service (Ancillary Staff)
  National Health Service (Ancillary Staff)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Blindness Allowance
  Blindness Allowance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation and Resettlement)
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation and Resettlement)
  National Health Service (Scrutiny)
  National Health Service (Scrutiny)
  Elderly Persons (Nursing Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Nursing Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Hospital Discharge)
  Elderly Persons (Hospital Discharge)
  Medical and Social Work Staff (Training)
  Medical and Social Work Staff (Training)
  General Practitioner Trainees
  General Practitioner Trainees
  Geriatric Medicine
  Geriatric Medicine
  Ethnic Minorities (Elderly Persons)
  Ethnic Minorities (Elderly Persons)
  Elderly Persons (Psychiatric Care)
  Elderly Persons (Psychiatric Care)
  Students (Supplementary Benefit)
  Students (Supplementary Benefit)
  "Official Report" (Tables)
  "Official Report" (Tables)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
  MV "Monsunen"
  MV "Monsunen"
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Palestinian Prisoners
  Palestinian Prisoners
  Chile
  Chile
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Brazil
  Brazil
TRANSPORT
  European Community (Driving Licences)
  European Community (Driving Licences)
  Motorways (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Expenditure)
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
ENVIRONMENT
  Lead (Biological Screening)
  Lead (Biological Screening)
  Local Authority Land
  Local Authority Land
  Council House Tenants (Mobility)
  Council House Tenants (Mobility)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Waste Reclamation
  Waste Reclamation
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Valuations
  Valuations
  Abandoned Mineworkings (Pollution)
  Abandoned Mineworkings (Pollution)
  River Rother (Pollution)
  River Rother (Pollution)
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Research Projects
  Research Projects
  New Towns
  New Towns
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Buses
  Buses
  Belleek Pottery
  Belleek Pottery
  Terrorist Activity (Detection)
  Terrorist Activity (Detection)
  Salmon and Trout (Illegal Netting)
  Salmon and Trout (Illegal Netting)
SCOTLAND
  Lime Subsidy
  Lime Subsidy
  Scottish Grand Committee, Edinburgh
  Scottish Grand Committee, Edinburgh
  Lothian Regional Council
  Lothian Regional Council
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Invergordon Smelter
  Invergordon Smelter
  Peritonitis (Kidney Patients)
  Peritonitis (Kidney Patients)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Rural Transport and Ferries (Report)
  Rural Transport and Ferries (Report)
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  National Health Service (Dispute)
  National Health Service (Dispute)
  Trident Site (Clyde)
  Trident Site (Clyde)
  Kingsway and Forfar Road, Dundee
  Kingsway and Forfar Road, Dundee
  Papal Visit
  Papal Visit
  Petrol (Price Differentials)
  Petrol (Price Differentials)
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
DEFENCE
  Falklands Task Force (Shipping)
  Falklands Task Force (Shipping)
  Rocket Motor Defence Establishments Waltham Abbey
  Rocket Motor Defence Establishments Waltham Abbey
  Royal Ordnance Factories Board
  Royal Ordnance Factories Board
  Uruguay (Defence Agreements)
  Uruguay (Defence Agreements)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  General Mario Benjamin Menendez
  General Mario Benjamin Menendez

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

Hazardous Waste Disposal
Lord Gregson: 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 when they are going to set up a Hazardous Waste Inspectorate and to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology concerning hazardous waste disposal.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, although a final decision on the location of the Inspectorate for Hazardous Waste has still to be taken, we expect to be able to establish it by the end of the year. In the period since the report was published, interested organisations have submitted views on it to the Department of the Environment and a series of very valuable meetings has been held with the major groups—the local authority associations, water authority representatives, industry and the disposal contractors, the Institute of Waste Management and environmentalists. The Government's commitment remains to seek the best means of implementing most of the recommendations and, while a wide measure of co-operation has been expressed at those meetings by all parties, there is still much work to be done.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but is he aware that there is extreme public concern about all questions relating to toxic and hazardous waste? Is he also aware that it is now twelve months since your Lordships' Committee reported? I should have thought that that was sufficient time, even for the Department of the Environment, to come to some conclusion on the matter. The recent programme on BBC television, in which a number of noble Lords on the Government Benches took part, I think highlights the need for much more urgent action. May I also ask how, when in the fullness of time, decisions will, I hope, have been made, those decisions will be disseminated to the public? They need in effect to be notified to the various local authorities and to the contractors—
A noble Lord: Too long!
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Gregson: May I therefore ask that some thought be given to the issue of a waste management paper?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, unlike some of my noble friends, I was in great sympathy with the noble
218
Lord until he used the words "even the Department of the Environment". The department is very proud of its record and of the speed at which it acts. I can say that the programme of research is continuing and, partly based on its results, work on the waste management papers on landfill and co-disposal is going ahead. Encouragement for the adoption of co-disposal in the right circumstances is continuing, as is the identification of further research. The Health and Safety Commission's notification scheme for new substances has been introduced informally and includes provision for information on wastes.
We hope to make a series of announcements, which will be followed in due course by a document containing a collective response. The Government feel that this remains the most appropriate way to focus attention on securing real improvements.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the committee's most important and urgent recommendations was that all professional handlers of hazardous waste outside the place of production must be licensed by their waste disposal authorities? Can he tell us how soon that very important recommendation is going to be implemented?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in the House last November, the Government feel that waste disposal authorities should progress further into the preparation of waste disposal plans before bringing in Section 1, which I think is what the noble Baroness is referring to. The Government still believe that this is the best course. A considerable number of other authorities are now nearing the completion of their plans and the Government feel that a good momentum is now being maintained in this area. The Government are still firmly of the view that implementation of Section 1 must await further progress on these plans.

Nuclear Weapons: Risks of Deployment
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the statement in the Labour Party's letter to Mr. Reagan that each new nuclear weapon, wherever deployed, serves only to increase insecurity and instability, and whether they are further aware that this applies to all nuclear weapons and not only to Soviet missiles.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government do not agree with this statement. Our objective is to achieve stability and security at lower levels of armaments. But we need strong defences, including new weapons if necessary, as long as our potential adversaries devote enormous resources to the means of war.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Party letter, to which I have referred in my Question, also says that in the field of nuclear arms both the United States and the Soviet Union long ago passed the level of destructive power which might be thought necessary to deter an aggression by the other? In these circumstances, will he not think again? Is not the doctrine of parity of overkill a lunatic proposition, whoever utters it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in these circumstances, the Western alliance attaches the greatest importance to the arms control talks which are in progress at the present time.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, without in any way wishing to criticise my noble friend, does he not think, if he reads the Question carefully, that the answer, Yes, or, No, would have been quite sufficient?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it was a Question which by its nature was rhetorical. In line with many other Questions which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asks me, I thought that there was really no satisfactory Answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree, and agree strongly, that the talks in Geneva on this subject between the Soviet Union and the United States, in the context of my noble friend's Question, are indeed very important at this time? Would he not also agree that there is a prospect of success, although it is dangerous to make any predictions in this field? Could he tell the House to what extent we are in close touch with the United States' Government in connection with these talks? One would like to feel that we have a certain amount of influence, although we are not ourselves participants in the talks.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's hope that there should be a real prospect of success in the talks to which I referred. Indeed, the START talks on intercontinental ballistic missiles began yesterday. We are, of course, in close touch with the Government of the United States. But there is one criterion which has to be met if these talks are to succeed. I refer, of course, to the talks across the whole board and, whether we are talking about intercontinental, intermediate range or conventional, the agreements must be genuine, they must be balanced and they must be verifiable.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would not the Government agree that, as between the super-powers, any struggle for what is called nuclear superiority is an absurdity? All that is necessary for the purpose of deterrence—and I repeat, for the sole purpose of deterrence—is the assured ability on a second strike to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are starting to go wide of the Question. The noble Lord is going off into first strike and second strike, which I know is of enormous importance. I would content myself with this answer. The deterrent power of
220
nuclear weapons, much as the West abhors them, has kept the peace of Europe for 37 years.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from the latter part of the original Answer, is the Minister aware of the mood which is now sweeping America for a freeze in nuclear weapons and which is now endorsed by the Democratic Party there? What is the attitude of the Government to this very hopeful proposal?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the whole of the Western alliance, not least, of course, the United States of America, with its great influence and great power, looks to the need to deter and that means having nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. But I repeat that we attach the first importance to balanced and verifiable arms control and, therefore, arms reductions in the talks which are taking place.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government look again at their proclaimed unwillingness to have our independent nuclear forces considered in any of these disarmament talks, in view of the fact that in a year or two's time the British and French independent nuclear deterrents, taken together, will amount to no less than one-quarter of the number of warheads of the American nuclear deterrent forces?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, a durable agreement must be based on the principle of parity between the United States and the Soviet Union, which is clearly breached if third party systems are included on one side.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the qualities of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which we lost when he left the Front Bench, was that he was capable of dealing with these matters seriously? Will the noble Lord endeavour to address himself to the proposition that overkill is an absurdity, and that either side increasing the amount of overkill necessarily increases instability? Will he address himself to that question?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I repeat that it is precisely because of the concern, which is shared throughout the Western world, at the level of armaments that we attach the highest importance to genuine reductions in arms in the talks which are proceeding at the present time. But I remind the noble Lord that deterrence has kept the peace for nearly 40 years. If the noble Lord is in any doubt about the views of the Western alliance, may I just remind him of words which were spoken by the Prime Minister only a week ago to the United Nations. My right honourable friend said:
"As President Roosevelt commented during the last war, we, born to freedom and believing in freedom, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees".

Israel: Assurances Sought by European Community
2.47 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: 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 will publish in the Official Report the assurance sought from Israel by the European Community following the invasion of Lebanon and the reply received: and as a result what consideration has now been given to the further postponement of the 40 million dollar financial protocol, to a revision of the Community's trade agreement with Israel, and to trade sanctions and an embargo on arms supplies.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am arranging for the text of the assurances sought from the Israeli Government to be circulated in the Official Report. I regret that no satisfactory reply has been received. The situation in Lebanon was discussed at the European Council in Brussels on 28th and 29th June. The Belgian presidency announced on 29th June that signature of the European Community/Israel Financial Protocol would remain suspended and that a forthcoming ministerial meeting between Israel and the Community had been postponed. The presidency also noted that no military equipment was being supplied to Israel by member states of the Ten.
Following is the text referred to above:
The following assurances were sought by the Belgian Presidency, on behalf of the Ten, from the Israeli Government on 14th June:

1. That the Government of Israel will apply the relevant Geneva Conventions, especially as regards prisoners.

2. That it will admit international relief organisations to the territory which its forces have occupied, and will facilitate their work.

3. That it will similarly admit and give normal facilities to representatives of the media.

4. That it recognises both the sovereign state of Lebanon and the international frontier between Lebanon and Israel.

5. That it has no wish to annex or occupy any part of the territory of Lebanon.

6. That it will not interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

7. It will co-operate fully with the Secretary General of the UN in all the areas of his responsibility.

8. It has no hostile intentions towards the Palestinian people.

9. It has no aggressive intention towards neighbouring countries, particularly Syria.

10. Its intention is to observe the cease-fire which has been established, so long as all combatants in the region do likewise.

It was made clear that these concerns of the Ten Governments were expressed in the context of their wish to work for the establishment of a global, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in the framework of which a Lebanon free from the cycle of violence would be able to take its place as an independent, sovereign and united state.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the Community's high-sounding protests are to be taken really seriously, they must be accompanied by some more positive action; in particular, perhaps, a total ban on arms supplies and an end to all trade preferences and credits, while Israel remains in occupation of the Lebanon? Secondly, may I put a brief question about prisoners which is worrying many people? Can my noble friend say how many prisoners are in Israeli hands and whether the Red Cross is still not being allowed access to them? Can he confirm that what Israel is doing is in flagrant breach of Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention? In particular, can he confirm the many frightening eyewitness accounts of the brutality being shown by the Israelis towards their prisoners? Will he tell your
222
Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can with our partners in Europe, and I hope with America, to bring to an end this extremely unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend calls for a total ban so far as arms and trade are concerned. I should like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government have decided that approval of licences for the export of British military equipment to Israel will be withheld until further notice. So far as trade is concerned, a number of measures were discussed in Brussels, but it was felt that those measures, subsequently announced by the European Community presidency, were as far as the Ten wished to go in present circumstances. Thirdly, my noble friend asked me: whether Article 4 of the Geneva Convento whether the specific Question which my noble friend asked me: whether Articles 4 of the Geneva Convention applies strictly to the PLO in this conflict, it is our hope that the Israelis will act according to the convention's principles.
My noble friend will notice from the text of the assurances which were sought that the first assurance sought relates to whether the Israeli Government will apply the relevant Geneva conventions, especially for prisoners. I repeat that I regret that no satisfactory reply has been received to that or to the other assurances. So far as the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross is concerned, I am advised that it has not gained access to prisoners at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that in difficult international situations such as exist at this moment in the Middle East, one-sided questions and one-sided debates in this House do not enhance the role of the United Kingdom but depreciate it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have made, on behalf of the Government, our position absolutely clear. We very much hope that Mr. Philip Habib's continuing negotiations with the Lebanese Government will result in a durable cease-fire and withdrawal of forces as a first step. After that, our position—when I say "our position" I mean the position of the Ten in Europe—is absolutely clear. We have voted for Security Council Resolution 509, we have made our statement in Brussels and we stand by the Venice principles. It is the last point which answers the noble Lord's question. The Venice principles are even-handed. We hope and pray that, through that even-handed approach, peace may come to the Middle East.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that, in war, civilian casualties are inevitable, especially when the enemy uses the civilian population as a shield? Why is there so much more compassion for civilian casualties inadvertently caused by the Israelis than there was for the civilian casualties caused by the PLO when they shelled settlements and planted bombs?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that civilian casualties in a conflict of this

223
nature are tragically almost inevitable. It was for that reason that the second assurance for which the Ten asked from the Israeli Government was admission of international relief organisations to the territory which Israeli forces have occupied and facilitating the work of international relief organisations. We are still waiting anxiously for a reply to that question, although I am glad to have been advised before this afternoon's Question that relief organisations are now making their way into Lebanon.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, has the noble Lord noted that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, apart from a wholesale condemnation of the state of Israel without regard to any justification on the side of Israel whatsoever, is asking for assurances of the most drastic character from Israel, is demanding the imposition of sanctions, is demanding that there should be withdrawal of the necessary finance to which Israel is entitled? In the circumstances of the condemnation for which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is responsible and as there does not appear to be a satisfactory answer from the Government—indeed, it is far from satisfactory—has it occurred to the noble Lord that there is an opening for the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and those who agree with him: that if they cannot obtain satisfaction by imposing sanctions, by destroying Israel's trade, by imposing financial difficulties on them, they should go to war with Israel?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether the terms of my noble friend's Question are, in a sense, being imputed to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, or whether the Answer which I gave to my noble friend is being described by the noble Lord as unsatisfactory. Certainly I do not think that the stance of the Government in this difficult and tragic matter is unsatisfactory. We have put our name to the statement made yesterday by the Ten in Brussels. I believe that statement to be right. We stand by the principles of the Venice Declaration. I believe that declaration to be even-handed and to be fair. And we are signatories to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 509 which calls for a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while the statement may well have been right, is there any reason to suppose that condemnation and exhortation, whether by the Community or by 127 members of the United Nations, will have the slightest effect on people like Mr. Begin and Mr. Sharon? Can the noble Lord say what arguments were used by those Community Governments which opposed the imposition of sanctions? They were quite effective against the Argentine régime.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in answer to the second question, I am afraid that I cannot, because I was not present at the discussions. However, I repeat that at the discussions among the Ten there certainly were countries which felt that the Ten had gone far enough in the stance which had been taken in this very difficult matter. So far as the power of exhortation and words are concerned, what we hope—this was the first point I made and perhaps your Lordships will agree
224
that it should be the last—is that Mr. Phillip Habib's negotiations are now going to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why Her Majesty's Government subscribed to a communiqué which had the glaring omission of not declaring unequivocally that the PLO should leave Lebanon? Does he not agree that the communiqué envisages that residual units of the PLO should still remain in Lebanon? Does not the Minister also agree that there would be no hope for stable statehood in Lebanon once there was a base in Lebanon for the PLO as an international terrorist organisation and a base for acts of murder and destruction against Northern Galilee?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord is not, perhaps inadvertently, being a little unfair so far as the statement is concerned.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Paragraph 3.
Lord Belstead: The reason I reply in that way is this. The statement included as a first step a call for withdrawal to be simultaneous: the Israelis from their positions around Beirut, the PLO from West Beirut. The statement then went on to call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces except those which would be authorised by a legitimate future Government of Lebanon. I believe that is the right way to go about it. That is what the statement said.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has been trying to get in for some time. I suggest that she should ask her question and that then we should move on to the last Question.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord is still obliged to tell me that the Israelis are not allowing supplies into Beirut by sea by the International Committee of the Red Cross but that they are allowing civilians to be evacuated out of Beirut by sea?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, but I cannot give a direct answer to that question. This is bound up among the assurances, to which we have asked for a direct reply. We have not received the direct reply which we had hoped for from the Israelis. I, like the noble Baroness, have of course been reading the newspapers and hearing the news, but I cannot give a better answer than the one which I have given during our short debate this afternoon.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, in spite of what—
Baroness Young: I think it really would be appropriate now to move on to the next Question.

Registration of Fishing Boats
3 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: 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 are the conditions for a British registration of fishing trawlers and whether they will explain how Spanish-owned trawlers, with one and occasionally two British crewman, can register as British ships, as a result of which they can fish within British inshore limits and their catches are counted against United Kingdom quotas.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, any fishing boat which satisfies the conditions laid down in the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats Registry) Order 1981 may register as a British shipping boat. This order requires that the boat is wholly owned either by British subjects or by a company established in the British Islands and having its principal place of business there. British fishing boats registered in the United Kingdom must satisfy the manning requirements contained in the Merchant Shipping (United Kingdom Fishing Vessels: Manning) Regulations 1980, but these are not a condition for registration.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as of last Wednesday there were six such Spanish boats fishing within our waters in the South-West area? Is he really saying that any foreign company of trawlers can so register with a £100 company in this country and, by employing only one British seaman—although I understand that the most employed by any of these six Spanish trawlers was two British seamen—make it possible to evade the regulations and obviously not carry out the letter of our registration? If this is to be the case and any of our competitors abroad can by this manoeuvre invade our inshore waters, does it not make a nonsense of the present negotiations which we are now having on a common European fishing policy?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the present position is unsatisfactory, but it is not perhaps quite so easy to register an ex-foreign fishing boat in this country as she suggests. It is essential that the company owning the boat should have its principal place of business in the United Kingdom. Investigations are made to ensure that these conditions are fulfilled. Recently, two such ships were removed from the register and we are now considering what further measures should be taken.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister accept that Spain has, if not the largest fishing fleet, then a fishing fleet which is as large as any in the Community, and does he accept that this situation is one of the consequences of having no agreed common fisheries policy? How soon are the Government going to get a settlement—which is now urgent—and one that takes into account the fact that the vast majority of the fish in all the Community waters is within our 200-mile limits? Is this not essential if our fisherman are to get a net return profit?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the question of a common fisheries policy lies outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. What we are dealing with is a
226
form of legal avoidance of the British registry conditions. We ought not to exaggerate the problem, important though it is. Only about 60 such Spanish or ex-Spanish fishing vessels are registered here, out of a total of some 7,000 boats on the fishery register.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, although the Minister was good enough to say that the present position is unsatisfactory, is it satisfactory for a £100 company with a principal place of business in this country to be in a position to be allowed to conform with registration?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the basic problem is that the powers we have are those conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which I believe was passed by a Liberal Administration. If we were to seek further powers, it would require primary legislation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough not only to pay a tribute to the Liberal Party but also to answer my question: whether a £100 company with its principal place of business in this country is satisfactory for the purposes of registration under the present Acts?
Lord Cockfield: I was totally unaware of the fact that I had paid a tribute to the Liberal Party and apologise for so doing. So far as the remainder of the noble Lord's question is concerned, the fact of the matter is that there are many £100 companies registered in this country which have their principal place of business here. I have already said that I do not regard the present position as being satisfactory, and we are investigating what further measures might be taken within the powers available to us.
Baroness Hornby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, although he may have evidence of only half a dozen or so boats, if they are allowed to get away with this, there is no limit to the number of French, Spanish and other trawlers which will abuse what are our traditional rights in the inshore fishing limits?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am well aware of the point my noble friend makes, and that is why I have said that we are now studying what further measures can be taken in this field to deal with the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if that is the Government's real intention, will the noble Lord the Minister then tell the House what has been done?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, whenever the Government take action of this kind it is, of course, a matter of public record. But, if at any stage the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, wishes further information I should be very willing to provide it—either in reply to a Question or in correspondence.

Transport Bill
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellwin on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 26

Schedule 1

Clauses 27 to 40

Schedule 2

Clauses 41 to 48

Schedule 3

Clauses 49 and 50

Schedule 4

Clauses 51 to 61

Schedules 5 and 6.

—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taking of Hostages Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 94 as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out "without lawful excuse".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I am advised that the original purpose of the inclusion of the words "without lawful excuse" in Clause 1 can be safeguarded, should the need arise, by the proper exercise of the Attorney-General's or the Lord Advocate's discretion to refuse to give consent to a prosecution in cases of a clearly non-criminal nature, even though they may be technically caught by the definition of the offence. This was a point to which my noble friend Lord Renton originally drew attention on Third Reading when this Bill was before your Lordships' House. Although on that occasion my noble friend withdrew his amendment, subsequently in another place the Government have met the point by bringing forward this amendment, which I now commend to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I welcome this amendment, the substance of which—as the noble Lord indicated—was raised during debate in this House on 22nd March on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to which I gave support on behalf of the Opposition. As I said in the earlier debate, the words "without lawful excuse" do not appear in the convention nor in legislation which other countries have tabled. These are important points. I agree that the inclusion of the phrase "without lawful excuse" is bound to suggest that there could be circumstances
228
when the taking of hostages could be reasonable and indeed acceptable. As the noble Lord has said, Clause 2—which requires the Attorney-General's consent—takes care of the situation. The amendment which was originally raised here and which has now come to us from another place is certainly welcome, and I will pay tribute to the Government for having reconsidered the matter, which has now been debated in both Houses.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as the originator of this amendment, which found scant favour in your Lordships' House, and notwithstanding the fact that it was moved on Third Reading by my noble friend Lord Renton, I commend ii to your Lordships yet again, albeit that it comes from another place. The reason for commending it is simply this: that it is wholly requisite in submission to give legal precision to Clause 1, within the general intendment of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I owe an apology to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for not attributing the origination of this amendment to him. The fact that my noble friend originated it and my noble friend Lord Renton spoke to it, and now the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has commended it, makes it, I hope, all the more attractive to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
"(1A) In Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (offences not to be regarded as of a political character) after paragraph 11 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Taking of hostages
11A. An offence under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982.".".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is really a drafting amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, as the amendment indicates, the offence of hostage taking is added to the list of offences in Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, a measure which gives effect to the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. I think it is appropriate thus to extend it by this amendment, which I welcome. In view of the fact that the passing of this measure and the amendment to the Suppression of Terrorism Act are most urgent, I wonder whether the noble Lord can indicate at this final stage the chances of getting ratification by the number of countries required to bring the convention into effect? I understand the number required is 22. It is urgent, not only for the defence of British citizens in this country but also for the defence of our own citizens and indeed others in other countries. If the noble Lord could indicate that, I think it would be reassuring to your Lordships' House.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord on that point, the United Nations convention, as Lord Bishopston said, will not enter into force

229
until 22 states have either ratified or acceded to it. We shall certainly continue to encourage other countries to take this course. My latest information is that at the moment the total who have so far signed, including the United Kingdom, is 18 countries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Stock Transfer Bill
3.13 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Regulations and amendments relating to the computerised system and exempt transfers]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("() No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recall that this Bill itself is a completely non-controversial Bill; in fact, it received but perfunctory attention in another place. We have already debated it on Second Reading, when there were a number of most interesting contributions, particularly from those noble Lords who have considerable experience in the City of London.
All this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that any regulations made under Clause 3 of the Bill are subject in your Lordships' House to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. It is thus not a party matter at all. If the Government would today give me an assurance that they will accept the amendment, then I must immediately say, after having consulted with my side of the usual channels, that we are prepared to allow the Bill to go through on Report and all remaining stages today if necessary.
I gather that, for reasons which are not quite clear, the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, that they regard the negative procedure as being quite adequate for this purpose. That being so, I have to support my amendment by some argument, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships on whichever side of the House your Lordships sit.
This Bill provides uniquely that specific securities can be transferred without written instrument of transfer through a computer based system. This is the essence of the matter. I would not wish to go through the whole of the arguments that I brought up at Second Reading, but I did, I think with some justification, point out that this was a unique event. There have in the past been a number of ways in
230
which property has been transferred, in which title to goods and other things has changed, and by virtue of which transactions are concluded, either verbally or under seal or under hand, whichever it may be. There has been a recent modification where the transfer of shares could be accomplished on the basis of the signature of the transferee only.
But now we are dealing with the question, if I may put it this way, of transfer by silicon chip. This is really what it is all about. This is not a most momentous thing so far as most of our citizens are concerned; they have no interest in the transfer of securities. But it is rather a novel form, and the question is whether, in view of the fact that this is an enabling Bill, admittedly an enabling Bill, it is proper that the regulations made under Clause 3 of the Bill should be by affirmative instrument. This is the sole issue before us.
The affirmative procedure is so designed that it lays an obligation on the Government to bring the order before the House itself for affirmation. Normally speaking, if the original Bill is non-controversial and the regulation is merely a technical, though important, one, it goes through this House in well under ten minutes and nobody is inconvenienced thereby.
The disadvantage of the negative procedure so far as this House is concerned is twofold. First, it means that the House itself has to depart from its own traditions. A tradition in this House, I believe, though I am subject to correction by those more experienced than I am, is that it is unusual to pray against orders. The other inconvenience is this. A negative order tends to be lost among the plethora of negative orders which appear before the House from time to time. If the noble Lord looks at the list of statutory instruments—No. 13—dated 26th June, he will find that there are already no fewer than 74 orders waiting the due passage of time and that can be prayed against under the negative procedure. In Part II there are certain schemes and ordinances which may be prayed against and these number some 12. In Part III there are some 15 orders which are going to be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House.
All one is trying to do is to say that, in a Bill of this uniqueness, however non-controversial it may be, it is quite proper that any regulation made in respect of Clause 1—and the noble Lord will, I am sure, agree that I have deliberately omitted Clause 4—should be subject to the affirmative resolution. It is necessary for all Governments of all political persuasions to conduct their administration through a series of orders and regulations. All Governments do it. Most departments, if they can get away with it, like to have the negative procedure because they know that there is very little likelihood among some 70-odd regulations outstanding at any one time, of anybody picking upon theirs. The affirmative resolution ensures that it comes before the House.
However, is it really important? Are the principles involved important? I must cite in this respect the view of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, who has very considerable experience and standing in the City, when he said on Second Reading:
" I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that a Bill of this character, although a highly tech-

231
nical Bill which interests relatively few people, is of immense importance. Everybody who engages in the transfer of securities can be affected by it. I think it is important that his point should be dealt with carefully and that in your Lordships' House we should examine the Bill very closely indeed".—[Official Report, 25/5/82; col. 1079.]
That is precisely what we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, may say, "Well, what is the real objection to the negative procedure at any rate? It makes very little difference". If it makes very little difference why cannot the affirmative procedure be agreed to anyway? Why can we not have the affirmative procedure if there is not very much difference between the two? The principles remain exactly as I have stated. All these matters are, of course, relative and without wishing in any way to say that any of the orders to which I shall refer do not merit the affirmative procedure—because I do not wish, in common with most other constitutionalists, to reduce the number of statutory instruments that are subject to the affirmative procedure—may I refer him to the following statutory instruments which are subject to the affirmative procedure. First, there is the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1982—a very small order with practically negligible effect upon a citation of certain extremely unimportant regulations in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1954, 1957 and 1971; an order that, in the ordinary way if one applied the criteria of the Treasury, ought to be not merely a statutory instrument subject to negative procedure, but possibly not subject to any procedure at all because it is a very small one. Then we have the Draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 Continuance Order 1982 for which there is no explanatory note save to point out:
"This order continues in force the Pool Competition Act 1971 until and including 26th July, 1983".
That is a world-shattering regulation to put up for affirmative procedure.
Alternatively, let us take the Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982. This is another one which, if the noble Lord examines it, he will find that there is nothing earth-shattering about it either and that there is no real reason why it should not go into the negative procedure even though I am quite sure, along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we would not wish to restrict the numbers going for affirmative resolution.
However, perhaps the best example of all is one that occurred last week where we had—and the noble Lord may recall it—the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order 1982 which was brought before us under the affirmative procedure. The debate upon it took exactly eight minutes and consisted in the main of the insertion of the words:
"from any place outside the United Kingdom".
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in explaining it said:
" The main, and I think by any standing not monumental, consequence of these changes, is that animals which come into Great Britain from Northern Ireland must be marked".— [Official Report, 24/6/82; col. 1179.].
That does not seem be be a world-shattering event that, in the ordinary way, would demand the affirmative procedure.
One can, of course, take the reductio ad absurdum argument too far and I do not wish to embarrass the
232
Government or any of their predecessors by citing these matters. But occasionally there does come a time, particularly here in your Lordships' House where we have a special function within the constitution, where we have to take a stand. I repeat that it would be no inconvenience to the Treasury—however irritated they may be that somebody wants to amend their precious Bill—to have the affirmative procedure, and I invite all those who regard the function of the House to safeguard Parliament as against the executive and to preserve the liberties of the subject—all constitutionalists on whichever side of the House they may sit—to support the amendment that I venture to lay before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is right to be vigilant about this matter. There is a great deal of nonsense in our subordinate legislation and I think that he was fully entitled to draw attention to one or two cases which are at present subject to affirmative resolution and to point out that really those cases are not justified. However, I am afraid that if we accept his amendment we shall be adding to the nonsense to which he has drawn attention. Of course, the important matter of whether there shall be an affirmative or a negative resolution—and it is an important matter and I do not take the view that the noble Lord was suggesting that it matters very little in some cases—is a matter of judgment, of our judgment as parliamentarians, and not only judgment in this House but judgment in the other House.
It so happens that in another place the suggestion which the noble Lord has made here was not made at all. That is not conclusive. We are entitled to improve upon the work of the other place. Indeed, in my humble opinion, that is largely the reason why we exist. But I do not think that we would be improving upon that work by making the particular regulations referred to in Clause 3(1) and, by reference, the other parts of the Bill under which regulations can be made, subject to affirmative resolution. I say that because, clearly, the affirmative resolution is right for use when substantial changes of the law may be made by affirmative resolution, when a very important power is being exercised in an enabling Bill; and I agree that this is an enabling Bill. But surely the affirmative procedure is not right for use when the regulations are to deal with detailed technical matters, and, indeed, are regulations containing administrative procedure and guidance. I should have thought that to use it in those circumstances was a misuse of the affirmative procedure.
As I understand it, the regulations are not likely to have to deal with matters of privacy, because in the matters which the regulations cover, or in the procedures which follow from those regulations, there is no question of privacy being divulged. So although one must be vigilant—always vigilant—about the interests of the subject, I do not think that the subject's right of privacy, to the limited extent that it is a right under our law, would be infringed if regulations were made. As I say, this is a matter of judgment. If, by some unlikely possibility—some mischance—there were ever to be another Labour Government, I do not think that the Chief Whip in another place

233
of that Government, looking back to our debate today if this amendment were to be carried, would praise the blessed name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I think he would say, "We have enough of these affirmative resolutions with which to contend. We have to make time specially for them. It is far better to leave it to Parliament to demand time for discussion under the negative procedure if there is any real uneasiness". Therefore, for those reasons, I hope that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, whom we are so glad and proud to see handling his first Committee stage, will consider rejecting this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had to say about his amendment. I do not think that there would be any point in my going over the background to the Bill, which has been discussed before. Nor can I comment usefully upon the many orders which he cited as examples of, perhaps, time-wasting discussion which has to be held on them in the future, because I have no special knowledge of them. But I do have one personal piece of knowledge about a Bill in which we rejected a piece of legislation in this way, and that was in the Deer Bill, which the noble Lord may remember took a certain amount of time earlier this year.
It might be useful if I were to describe the sort of regulations which are envisaged under the Bill. As the noble Lord said, the principal regulations which will be made, following enactment of this Bill, are those under Clause 3, which establishes the technical framework for computerised transactions—that is, the nuts and bolts of the scheme. The remaining regulations will parallel existing regulations in respect of transfers by instrument in writing and cover such matters as the certification of stock holdings and the protection of the office running the computer installation against notices of trust, et cetera.
The regulations under the Bill will not deal with such matters as privacy and safeguard against fraud, rather in the way that my noble friend Lord Renton described just now. These matters will be the subject of separate arrangements and will principally be those adopted by the people establishing and running the scheme in their own interests. The expected users of the scheme are, naturally, conscious of the need to ensure that the system is proof against fraudulent use or accidental misuse. They are also strongly aware of the need to preserve confidentiality. There is, of course, the possibility of legislation on privacy in respect of computer records coming before both Houses in due course, and the operators of the system have already given an assurance that if such legislation is enacted, they will ensure that the system complies with any such legal requirements.
This Bill simply clears the way for the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange to do more efficiently by new technology what they at present do by hand—namely, process large numbers of stock transfers. To make the regulations which I have described subject to affirmative resolution would, in the Government's view, be unnecessary. The regulations will be of a specialist nature and ideal candidates for the negative procedure, as the Bill envisages and as my noble friend Lord Renton said just now, particularly when one
234
considers that any alterations to the regulations which would be made in due course would also be subject to the affirmative procedure, which, of course, is a thoroughly time-consuming process. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Renton also said, if the case of the noble Lord; Lord Bruce, is as strong as he feels it is, I am a little surprised to find no clamour for the affirmative procedure in the Second Reading and Committee debates in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the assurances which I have given about the scope of the regulations which the Bill envisages and will agree that his amendment is not needed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most indebted to the noble Lord for having provided some further information which was not given on Second Reading as to the form and the approximate parameters of the regulations that it is proposed to issue in connection with subsection (1). While I am about it, I should like to felicitate the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Box and sincerely hope that we shall have many other opportunities possibly of crossing swords or of forging plough shares, as the case may be.
I do not find the arguments that have been adduced against this amendment very satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, laid down what seemed to be an astonishing doctrine, that if a regulation were replete with technical matters, that seemed automatically to disqualify it from the affirmative procedure. I was always taught—and indeed I aver—that experts should be on tap, never on top, and that if a regulation contains an undue amount of technical matter, that is all the more reason for drawing it to the attention of the House, so that the appropriate expertise may be obtained, by way of advice, in helping to elucidate any matters that appear obscure.
The noble Lord said that he thought that perhaps a Labour Government might reproach me for having insisted on the affirmative resolution in this particular case. Quite frankly, I do not mind in the slightest. If the noble Lord will look at my record in another place he will find that I had plenty of arguments with them there on these exact principles to which I hold. No, it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to give way on this matter, for reasons that to me still remain obscure. Therefore, all I can say is that I shall obviously have to review the matter again to see whether on Report I can produce something that may go some way to allay their fears—because they obviously have fears—in the hope that then, on Report, they may be able to quieten my suspicions. It is not fitting that I should seek to divide the Committee on an issue of this kind. I rather hoped to carry your Lordships' agreement to the arguments on a purely constitutional basis. Therefore, I shall be content to have the amendment negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
(Amendment No. 2 not moved.)
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Supply of Goods and Services Bill
3.42 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
[The amendment that had been tabled was not moved.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mishcon.) Question put.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, which your Lordships have so happily agreed to, it falls to my lot to express some appreciation, and I do it very happily. My first words of appreciation go to the Secretary of State who himself and with his department, both here and in another place, have assisted those who have promoted this Bill in draftsmanship and in very sound advice. I thank the National Consumer Council who have been at my disposal on all occasions when I needed them. I know that this was also true of my right honourable friend in another place when he sponsored this Bill there.
I am grateful to the Scottish Consumer Council who put their plea for the inclusion of Scotland with all the enthusiasm that one would expect. In turn I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who, when he dealt with that matter, expressed himself in a very helpful way in regard to the co-operation that he hoped would exist between the Scottish Law Commission and the English Law Commission in furthering the inclusion of Scotland in legislation so that Scottish consumers can similarly benefit.
Lastly, I am most grateful to the Members of your Lordships' House from all parts of the House who have expressed their interest in, and enthusiasm for, this Bill. I do not think that I will get appreciation from your Lordships' House if I detain you much longer, having expressed the whole purpose of this Bill at Second Reading.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I inadvertently collected the voices, I must apologise to the noble Lord, before he started to speak. Therefore, I will now put the Question that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may at all times have such a helpful and courteous intervention in the middle of any speech I make I shall be so grateful, as indeed I am on this occasion. I was about to say that I do not think that it is necessary for me to repeat myself. All I would do, and I promise it in very summarised form, is to say that there is contemporary proof of the great need for consumer protection by this legislation in two publications which have recently been issued. The first one was on home improvements. It was a discussion paper published in March of this year by the Office of Fair Trading. That highlights various problems of poor performance, delay, and high cost in the home improvement market. Secondly, in
236
May of this year, and therefore a matter of only weeks ago, a document was issued at the instance of the County of Cleveland, Car Servicing and Repairs, which tells, if I may paraphrase it, a sorry tale of the instances of poor servicing in garages of motor cars that had been taken to them for servicing, or repair, after a spot check and examination had been carried out in that area.
I think we have done a useful job in seeing this Bill through this House, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is to be devoutly hoped that consumers will now know more of what their rights are and will therefore be able to take advantage of them. While commending all those who supply good services and who supply goods to our citizens as they should do, there are the fringe who ought to be looked at with criticism, and against whom there ought to be protection.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I shall be equally brief, and everything I have to say with one small exception is congratulatory. First, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that I think all sides of the House are agreed that this is a good Bill and that we are very pleased that it has made such quick progress. I should like, first, to congratulate Mr. Fred Willey in the other place both on his very good fortune in securing the first place on the ballot and in choosing this Bill, and, if I may, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mishcon on the way in which he has taken this Bill through the House. I think we all enjoyed what he had to say. He has one great gift, if he will allow me to say it, and that is that it is a great art to say "no" to amendments that are put forward, but to say it so nicely that nobody minds. I can say that quite unbiasedly because I did not put any forward, but I was lost in admiration at one or two of the legal points which arose and which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt with so pleasantly and so firmly.
I certainly agree with him that we wish to congratulate the National Consumer Council and the Scottish Consumer Council. I should also like to say "thank you" to the Government in another place for the support they gave originally, and in particular to Mrs. Sally Oppenheim who, on Second Reading, really said all that she could in favour of the Bill. I come now to my one, I think, non-congratulatory point. I am glad that we now have the Secretary of State for Trade in our House. I do not think that he can do anything about it, but doubtless he will dwell on it.
I was sorry that we were not able to include Scotland in this Bill. I know the reasons why. The only point I wish to make is this: When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate spoke to us at the Committee stage he did, at column 442, say that he gladly paid tribute to the work of the Scottish Consumer Council. What I had hoped—and I do not know whether the Secretary of State would feel that he could say it this afternoon on the Motion that the Bill do now pass—was that what I considered the very reasonable request of the Scottish Consumer Council could receive an answer. They hoped that the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Government, would be able to offer some commitment that the

237
law in Scotland in relation to the supply of services would be the object for consideration by the Scottish Law Commission in the near future. The only point I wish to stress to the Secretary of State is that, obviously, the relevant detail there is the phrase "in the near future". If he were able to say that, he would bring great joy to the Scottish Consumer Council.
I wish the Bill well. I am sure our new Secretary of State will do all he can to put it through. I think it will benefit consumers. Finally, once more I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly on behalf of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the Bill has been widely welcomed both here and in another place. It will, I believe, benefit both suppliers and those acquiring goods or services, since it will be helpful to both to have the basic legal rights set out in clear statutory form. It is difficult for people, with the best will in the world, to he certain about their rights and obligations under the law unless it is set out in clear and simple terms, as this Bill does.
A number of anxieties have been expressed in various parts of your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill, and it might be appropriate if I took this opportunity of repeating the assurances which my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and I have given during the passage of the measure. I recognise that Part H is intended to codify the existing common law. I shall not make a commencement order bringing Part II into force until those who provide services have had an opportunity to consider whether the Bill would impose additional responsibilities and whether they wish to make representations about that. If they do, they should do so without delay. I shall consider carefully any cases put forward. If I am satisfied that the Bill would impose new obligations on a particular sector of the service industries, I shall be prepared to consider whether to make an order excluding that sector from Part II. There is clearly advantage in any such order coming into force at the same time as Part II itself. That itself would indicate that any representations should be made promptly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked me to give a definition of the phrase "in the near future". I imagine that providing such a definition has defeated many a draftsman. Nevertheless, I will bring her remarks to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said and as the noble Baroness also remarked, a large number of people have contributed to the Bill—the Law Commission, the National Consumer Council, the Scottish Consumer Council, the sponsors, and indeed the supporters of the Bill both here and in another place but—I would pay tribute particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has steered the Bill successfully through your Lordships' House with skill, eloquence and courtesy. I believe that the Bill will prove beneficial both to suppliers of goods and services and to their customers. On that basis, I am sure your Lordships will wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill passed.

EEC 2nd Report: Agricultural Trade Policy
3.55 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow Lord Greenhill of Harrow rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agricultural Trade Policy (2nd Report, 1981–82, H.L. 29.)
The noble Lord said: The committee is most grateful to the House, my Lords, for making time available for this short debate. We have come up twice already to the starting post only to be turned aside, quite rightly, for more important business, and we realise that it is a great luxury to have a third chance, and we are most appreciative.
Before we enter on the discussion of the details of the report, it is perhaps as well to remind ourselves that the European Community is the world's largest food importer and the second largest food exporter, that exports have been growing faster than imports and that its deficit on agricultural trade exceeds 30 billion dollars. It is against that background that I ask your Lordships to consider our report. The subject is the Community agricultural trade policy; in other words, how the common agricultural policy and, to a lesser extent, the common commercial policy as at present implemented, affect the Community's agricultural and food trade with third countries, both developed and developing.
Sub-Committee B considered the matter at the end of last year and we were reinforced for the purpose by certain members of Sub-Committee D, to which we look as the source of wisdom on agricultural matters in this House. As the chairman of the sub-committee I pay tribute to the diligence of its members, to the wisdom of its adviser and to the skilful guidance of the clerk and the willing help of her staff. While we were preparing the report, we were very conscious that the Government were about to enter on discussions at the highest level for the reform of the CAP and the Community budget. Those discussions were intended to reach a climax in November last at the Council meeting in London.
As your Lordships know only too well, no agreement was reached and, since then, we have had the drama of the Luxembourg Compromise and a good deal of mutual recrimination among Community members. Without foreknowledge of those unhappy events, our committee had hesitated to bring our report to the House for debate and would have preferred to allow its observations to be available for reflection by the Commission and Governments during the period of those intense negotiations. Moreover, the report deals with very difficult areas of conflicting interests, not only between Community countries but within individual countries. The report tried to set them out fairly and dispassionately and, as a result, may be thought to be long on discussion and short on clear-cut practical recommendations.
When the report was published, it provoked rather a testy response from the President of the Commission. The gist was that we underestimated the just balance and careful co-ordination of agricultural trade policy by his branches in Brussels. We thought that a little complacent; and indeed, as the Duke of Wellington

239
observed in another context, if you can believe that you can believe anything. Nevertheless, members of the committee are hopeful that the seeds of some of our opinions will fall on less stony ground both in Brussels and in the capitals.
I am grateful to noble Lords for putting their names down to speak. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has done so. He has, so to speak, been on both sides of the barricades and his observations will therefore carry special authority. I am also very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, a distinguished Minister of Agriculture, is taking part. But I should like to point out that these matters are not for the Minister of Agriculture alone. The Department of Trade is very much involved, and I am very glad indeed to see the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, present this afternoon, and we look forward to deriving great benefit from his presence in this House.
In order to avoid at this stage going into too great detail, may I give a rather simplified view of the committee's main conclusions, as follows? The agriculture Ministers of the Community have traditionally had a very good run for their money. At their council they have, for the most part without serious challenge, decided the Community agricultural policy primarily on the basis of their own domestic needs. The spin-off effect on external trade has been given a very much lower priority, if not ignored. It is, I believe, now recognised that they have had in the past far too much rope. If they have not hanged themselves, they have come very near to choking many others. High Community farm prices have led to surpluses. Surpluses have led to subsidised exports. Subsidised exports have distorted traditional patterns of trade. Many of our friends and natural allies have suffered from this, and are now thinking how best to make the Community suffer in return.
Of course, no one has a monopoly of justice and the Community policy-makers have substantial argument to deploy on behalf of their existing policies. But the fact remains that damage is being done not only to developing countries, but to others, such as Australia and the United States, whose relationships, not only in trade, are of great moment to us.
At present the EEC agricultural trade practices are the subject of dispute in the United States International Trade Commission, and more importantly in the GATT. On sugar they are being attacked by 10 GATT members, including Australia, India, the Philippines, and Brazil. In addition, we have been in serious dispute with Thailand over cereal substitutes. Your Lordships may say that there is nothing very new in that kind of situation; it is the usual process of "pots calling kettles black", and the give and take in international trade between competitors finding their established positions under challenge. The special cause for concern is that in the current world trade situation these disputes are more likely to invite retaliation, inflame agricultural trade relations, and spill over into other important trade matters.
So far the United States have taken it all fairly patiently, perhaps because they are not themselves beyond reproach. But they are likely to become more hostile, and more hostilely vociferous and active, as their rural recession deepens. Moreover, the
240
new United States Secretary of State is vastly more interested in economic affairs than were his predecessors. Those who heard him lecture in London a few months ago will recall that he put great emphasis on "playing the rules" in GATT, and it was perfectly clear that he took a critical view of the Community in some of these trade matters.
Therefore, in order to introduce a better balance between domestic and external needs, our sub-committee consider it desirable for an explicit agricultural and food trading policy to be formulated by the Community. This is the clearest and central recommendation of the report. Only such an exercise, involving, as it necessarily would, all the director-generals of the Commission concerned, will start clearly to identify and show the way to eliminate the contradiction in Community policies affecting its agricultural trade. I can well believe that the first attempts to formulate such a policy in a formal way would generate a strong debate and might achieve only very limited advances. It is easy to argue that there are more urgent tasks to be done, but we believe that the process of trying to get agreement would in the long run be useful. It would of course be touching on sensitive matters, and as such might well be asking too much in the present difficult circumstances.
The number of apparent contradictions between the external effects of the CAP and the other objectives of the Community's other external policies seem to us to justify a more rigorous examination. The contradictions are clearly set out in the report, and I shall not enumerate them all now. The situation was put very neatly some time ago—and this is quoted in the report—when the then Secretary of State at the Department of Trade remarked that the Community's external trading policy is founded on the principle that the interests of the world community are best served, agriculture aside, by an open world trading system. Consistency is not necessarily a virtue, but the Community should, not least for political reasons, as well as economic reasons, both short and long term, examine more closely the external consequences of its present agricultural policies. The Community is dependent on many third countries. developing and developed, for both raw material supplies and markets for its industrial exports. It can ill-afford to ignore these interests.
Furthermore, it is surely particularly important that by its agricultural trade policies, by subsidised exports of cereals, for example, the Community should not act in such a way that developing countries are discouraged from producing their own foodstuffs and in various ways deprived of legitimate export markets.
Members of our sub-committee will wish to develop points of special interest to themselves; for example, of the Community countries, the United Kingdom is probably the one most involved in food processing. It is far from clear that our manufacturers are getting a square deal in the Community where the impact of tariffs, import levies, and export refunds is detrimental to our manufacturers. There is also the interesting point on how far the desire for self-sufficiency should dominate Community agricultural policy. There is, of course, a different historical approach to this matter between the United Kingdom and the continental

241
members of the community. As the report shows, views in our own Department of Agriculture appear to be changing. But the majority of our sub-committee thought that less emphasis should be given to it, and the views of noble Lords on this debatable point would be valuable.
Alongside the problem of self-sufficiency is the future export policy of the Community. This is clearly the subject of debate within the Commission. There are those who favour what is described as a dynamic export policy—long-term contracts of large quantities of food. Others are suspicious of the intrusion of state trading. Our committee felt that this matter needs careful and cautious examination for both political and economic reasons. The constant failure of agriculture in Eastern Europe suggests that there is scope there for balancing the need for food against the supply of gas.
There is one particular plea that the committee makes; that is, that the agricultural trade problems of enlargement—the entry of Portugal and Spain—should be tackled energetically in advance of entry. In this way we shall not add to our internal conflicts by misunderstanding and half-promises, as we did at the time of our own entry.
This debate and, for example, the recent excellent debates on competition policy and state aids have, we hope, the effect of nudging the Community to more sensitive patterns of behaviour. We are growing more and more accustomed, and even resigned, to small steps forward. From time to time one is bound to wonder whether this is enough, and to ask whether a more radical reform of the Treaty of Rome is urgently needed to realise the high hopes many had of harnessing the political, economic and cultural strengths of Western Europe. What is happening now certainly does not measure up to the need.
Even more important is the question whether the world situation does not call for more dramatic and radical steps to ensure not only a unified European response but a wider Western response to present economic and political threats. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agricultural Trade Policy (2nd Report, 1981–82, H.L. 29.) —(Lord Greenhill of Harrow.)
4.11 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, we are debating the subject of agricultural trade policy on the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, after some delays. I wish to pay tribute to the committee's chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and its members. We thank them for the report and for the evidence of the detailed examination of witnesses whose expertise and views contributed to it.
Agriculture is one of the United Kingdom's most productive industries, whereby 2.7 per cent. of the labour force produces 60 per cent. or more of the food we need. We have excellent farmers, excellent technicians, and I believe we should be very proud of what our farming community have contributed over the years. They often get sniped at, but I think they play an important part in our economy. For obvious and climatic reasons we cannot produce all our food. For that reason it is often thought that
242
we cannot therefore export food and drink. In fact, our agricultural exports are worth several billion pounds a year—a considerable help to our balance of payments. As the report states, agricultural trade policy derives from the CAP and the common commercial policy (CCP), and it is vital that in the review of the CAP which is taking place the aspects of agricultural trade policy and external relations are borne well in mind.
Agricultural trade among individual EEC member countries and between the EEC and the rest of the world is important. The United Kingdom makes a significant contribution to it. Important ingredients include support, as I said earlier, for the farming communities, promotion of agriculture in developing countries and the fostering of good relations with other major producers and, of course, with overseas consumers.
In my time as a Minister of Agriculture (like, I am certain, the noble Lord, Lord Soames, whom I succeeded; he was a distinguished Minister, and I am sure he will also remember that visits were paid by Ministers and that they were very important and welcome) I visited a number of countries on trade missions because other countries recognise that United Kingdom agriculture is so well organised and productive. They seek our products, and our know-how, too. The Community must do more to encourage trade with non-EEC countries. I have always urged a greater liberalisation of EEC trade especially, and of non-EEC trade. I note that the report states in paragraph 9 that the Treaty of Rome, Article 110, has the objective (if I may quote) of,
"the harmonious development of world trade",
which does not appear to refer to agricultural trade. I think that is an important defect.
As the CAP is based, as the report points out in paragraph 13, on a system of prices which are distinct from world prices, the EEC has to apply a set of levies covering the difference between EEC and world prices. Although there is little possibility of imports undercutting EEC prices, the Community must do something soon to change and improve the CAP so that EEC prices are not generally higher than those outside the EEC, regardless of adjusting factors. However, I had better not stray on to this subject, which includes EEC pricing policies, the prevention of surpluses and so on.
Unjustified protection against non-EEC countries discourages competition, which could bring lower prices, and discriminates unfairly against EEC low-cost producers. Some of our former trading partners in the Commonwealth are most critical of EEC export trade inflexibility (paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report). I think the report's reference to recent Commission proposals (paragraph 48) and to the Mandate Report, with questions of principle for trade, is helpful. For example, two points of importance are as follows: that there should no longer be full support for products in structural surplus; and that the Community should adopt,
"a more active export policy designed to stabilise world prices by means of co-operation agreements with other major exporters. These could be supplemented by long-term export contracts".
Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the report, detailing the opinion of the Select Committee, will find general

243
agreement, although they must be considered not only in relation to EEC and non-EEC trade but in the wider area of international organisations, such as GATT, and the needs of the third world, with the Brandt recommendations kept very much in mind. I agree with the recommendations, including those which suggest that international commodity agreements are another effective way to stabilise world markets. I believe the Community should assume its responsibilities in the sugar market by joining the International Sugar Agreement.
Again, more attention should be given to the impact of tariffs, import levies and export refunds on food processing. Also, the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal may well lead to surpluses of new products which would distort world trade in Mediterranean products and adversely affect other associates. More determined efforts should be made to solve these problems before enlargement takes place.
As the CAP represents well over half the cost of the overall EEC budget, it follows that justified criticism of the CAP, including some of the aspects referred to in this report, reflect on the EEC as a whole. I believe that the Select Committee has added to our indebtedness for their painstaking work in assessing the evidence so helpfully given by so many with experience of the problems.
I do not know whether noble Lords have read an article in the Guardian today, but that says that there are likely to be grim figures indicating that there could be a new United States farm-led slump. Many of our people fail to realise that we in our own country play a very important part, and I am quite sure that if we are lax we might well suffer what happened in the early 'twenties. However, I believe that the report is a fine one, and I pay tribute again to all those who took part in its preparation.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and other members of his committee on the report that they have produced. Sticking to his guns has always been a notable feature of Lord Greenhill's life in the past and this has been no exception. As he said, "Third time lucky!". He has twice been up to the starting post and he has persisted with bringing this matter before your Lordships and, as it turned out, what an extremely appropriate moment it is that this matter should be debated. The communiqué following the summit meeting in Brussels (as reported in the daily editions) refers to a dialogue being opened with the United States over potentially severe differences of trade between the European Community and the USA; and noble Lords will be aware that the USA, if they enter into this "constructive dialogue" are going to wish to put many matters of agricultural trade high on their agenda; so I think it is good that we should be discussing this subject today.
We are not discussing the common agricultural policy; it is the report on agricultural trade policy that we are discussing; but it is not possible to discuss Community agricultural trade policy without saying a word or two about the way in which the common agricultural policy, as at present conceived, calls for such
244
large surpluses in so many commodities that they have to be put on the world markets. There are, I suppose, three major objections most often put forward to the CAP. One is the cost to the Community; and I often wonder whether this is right, other than the cost of the subsidisation of the exports of their surpluses to get what the farmers receive down to the world price. Other than that, I do not believe it is a fair attack on the CAP to carp at its cost; for the deficiency payments cost a great deal as well, and I wonder very much whether, if the Community were pursuing today a deficiency payments system, it would not cost as much.
The second objection is that the traditional exporters through the EEC have seen their exports decline and even disappear, and the USA has been the country that has taken the lead in this assault on the CAP. I want to put to your Lordships that neither is this a fair proposition for exporting countries to make; because here set out in Annexes 6 to 9 of the report are the EEC net imports of food products from 1973 to 1979. During those years, the imports from the world as a whole increased from £4,000 million to nearly £8,000 million. From the USA, they doubled from £900 million to £1,800 million, and although I agree that those imports are different foodstuffs, different commodities, in 1979 from what they were in 1973, this is not necessarily a bad thing and the customer must have a certain right in saying what it is he wishes to import. The hard fact is that in money terms the USA has been exporting double in terms of work, of value, to the Community in 1979 compared with 1973, and, indeed, all countries have, with two exceptions. One is Australia, whose figure has fallen unfortunately low from just over £200 million in 1973 to £80 million in 1979, and EFTA have been net importers from the Community of £197 million in 1973. They grew to over £400 million, nearly £500 million, in 1979.
Apart from Australia and the EFTA countries, it is not true that the Community has not been importing increasing amounts of foodstuffs from the world. Taken as a whole, by and large, grosso modo, I do not believe that this charge stands up; but there is a third charge. That is that the traditional exporters at world prices on to the world markets are having their markets interfered with and world prices forced down by subsidised exports in large quantities from the EEC on to what were traditionally their markets. I fear that this charge does stand up.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Table 6 of the report, where you will see that, compared with during the later years of the decade of the 1970s, looking at sugar, the EEC exports as a proportion of total world exports grew from 7 per cent. to 21 per cent. In beef, they grew from 6 per cent. to 24 per cent. of total world exports; in wheat, from 6 per cent. to 14 per cent.; in butter from 15 per cent. to 62 per cent.; in skimmed milk powder from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. There are some figures which I think tell quite a story and mean that we have really got to look again, when we realise that all these exports were highly subsidised, interfered with commercial producers' livings and also were very costly to all of us within the Community.
Take sugar, for instance: sugar production between 1973 and 1981 rose from 9 million tonnes to 15 million tonnes within the Community. That is 50 per cent.

245
more. The exports from the Community—because consumption of sugar hardly rose at all—rose from under one million tonnes, (780,000 tonnes) in 1973 to 4 ½ million tonnes (5 ½ times more) in 1981. It is as a direct result of this that ten countries, varying from Australia, on the one hand, to the poorest of developing countries on the other are taking us to the GATT because we are ruining their living on the world markets. That is but one example that I would give your Lordships.
None of this was ever envisaged. This degree, this explosion of production and the proportion of our production that must be exported in a highly-subsidised manner was never envisaged. I remember that when I was taking part in the first negotiations in 1961 and the second negotiations in 1972, none of this was envisaged: that the CAP would call forth this sort of trade problem for the Community which has to live off its trade. It is the biggest trading entity in the world. We expect to behave well and we must look to our laurels to ensure that we behave as well as others.
Let us look, for instance, at the Japanese. We grumble a great deal—and rightly so—about how the Japanese are hesitant, to say the least, in encouraging exports from outside their country into Japan. We also grumble a good deal about how effectively they can swamp a market with their motorcars, hi-fi equipment or whatever it may be. But just think. We would be squealing like stuck pigs if that equipment and those motor cars were subsidised. Yet, do we think nothing of subsidising all our agricultral exports just because they happen to be agricultural? But other countries mind about agriculture to the same extent that we mind about motor cars.
What can we do about this? The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has rightly said that what we want is an agricultural trade policy. The Commission is making noises about bringing agricultural prices more into line with world prices. Are they hell!Barely was the ink dry on that piece of paper than they increased by nearly 10 per cent. the prices for this year regardless of what world prices were. Of course our farmers have to be properly treated; but equally they have to be made aware of the movement of world prices.
We had standard quantities. When the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was such an effective Minister of Agriculture following upon myself—he was almost as good as me, I thought!—in those days, when we had standard quantities, the objective was that once the farmers had produced what Government thought was in the national interest should be produced at home, any production over that was at world prices. Whether there is a deficiency payment system whereby the taxpayer pays a large proportion of the return to the farmer or whether there is the continental system whereby the consumer pays the lot and the taxpayer just pays for the subsidies on the exports, if you do not somehow bring in some control—call it standard quantities or what you will—if you have it totally open-ended, but never mind whether it is 1 million or 2 million tonnes of a particular commodity which is produced, the farmer will get the same price for every tonne he produces, then you are bound to be riding for trouble.
Although there is a great deal of good commonsense and soundness in the CAP, if you are going to
246
have an agricultural trade policy—and certainly the Community needs to have one now because we have become big dealers in agricultural commodities—the first prerequisite is to have a common agricultural policy which is so managed as not to call forth vast surpluses which have to be put upon the market and therefore have to be subsidised and have to be got rid of somehow. If you do not have the right agricultural policy, you cannot have an agricultural trade policy.
So, how are we going to do it? I, and I am sure other noble Lords, were interested to see that the Commission proposed and the Council of Ministers agreed that where sugar is concerned—which has got well beyond a joke—the producer will pay the subsidies over a certain quantity. The subsidies are paid not by the taxpayer but by the producers. There is a levy on producers for sugar above a certain level of production. The effect of that has been to reduce by 81 per cent. in this year—because it has only just been brought in—the acreage under sugar.
I am not saying that this can fit exactly every commodity, but we have somehow got to work out a scheme whereby the Community can benefit from the farmers' efficiency and effectiveness and the production of their food within the Community. I am not going to argue what the level should be; whether it should be total self-sufficiency or marginally less. This is another argument in itself. However, we should agree what commodities should be produced by the farmers in the interests of the Community within the Community. Beyond that point there has to be some way of it being brought home to individual farmers through the price that they get for their products what the world market price is on the market on which they are putting such a high proportion of their production. It is as simple as that. However, it is one thing to say it; I know that it is another to get it.
Something is sure—until we get it do not let us fall into the trap of making long term contracts for the sale, for instance, of wheat to Egypt. When I was a commissioner responsible for external trade, those who were responsible—the agricultural lobby—tried like mad to get the agreement of the Commission—and I was determined that they should not—that a long-term contract should be made with a number of countries to buy wheat.
What does that mean? What was the objective? The objective was that not only should the farmers of the Community be feeding the Community, not only should they be providing our food aid to the poorer of the world, but that also built into this machinery should be a number of long-term contracts to Tom, Dick and Harry outside. Maybe in the long run this will be possible, but only after we have put our house in order first. Do not let us go for making any long term contracts until we know that in the short term we are going to be able to put our house in order. It is a good house and it is worth putting in order.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we would all agree that much water has passed under the bridges since this report was published last November. Farm prices

247
have been fixed by a qualified majority over the—perhaps not entirely dissentient—head of the British Minister of Agriculture. Our contribution to the EEC budget has been agreed, if only provisionally, and the anti-Community feeling which undoubtedly was engendered by these events in the nation generally has, to some extent at any rate, been appeased by the way in which our Community partners sprang to our assistance in the Falklands affair by imposing sanctions against the Argentine when economically it was very greatly to their disadvantage. So we are perhaps now in a better position to consider the recommendations of Lord Greenhill's report objectively than we would have been had we discussed it some six months previously.
The main conclusion we arrived at in the subcommittee has already been referred to. It is surely incontestable. As has already been said, it is desirable that an explicit agricultural food trade policy be formulated involving all the Directorates-General of the Commission, an exercise that will start to identify and eliminate the contradictions of Community policies affecting agricultural trade. That is surely an incontestable conclusion which I am sure will be accepted by all interested in the matter.
Of course it involves consideration of the CAP, which cannot altogether be dissociated from this debate though it is not as such the subject under discussion. After all, we must admit that the CAP provided a common market for agricultural products, resulting in relative stability of prices and the broad safeguarding of the position of farmers, without raising the cost of living in the Community unduly. The latest increases in farm prices, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Soames—10 per cent. or so—I believe only raised the cost of living in this country by an insignificant percentage, so I understand. And if it were not for the Common Agricultural Policy we should have to subsidise our own farmers to the extent of something like £1,500 million a year—more than twice as much, incidentally, as our contribution this year to the general EEC Budget.
I know that some argue, generally speaking, that we should be better off if we could buy all the extra food we need on the world market. These arguments are not to be ignored, but, as we all know, world prices tend to fluctuate greatly over the years and would anyhow tend to rise if we ever re-entered the market on a large scale. Therefore, surely it is not so much from the strictly internal point of view that the Common Agricultural Policy is open to criticism in this country as for the reason, in the first place, that it still accounts for an enormous proportion—some 67 per cent. I think—of the whole Community budget. Secondly, and above all, no doubt, is the fact that, as I think all previous speakers have agreed, it necessarily result in a number of surpluses which can only be disposed of at world prices on the world market, thus giving rise to complaints from "developed" nations that they are being ousted from some of their traditional markets by what they call "subsidised" EEC exports. I believe that the Commission objects to that phrase and says that they are not actually subsidised, though of course in practice they are. It is also complained of by some of the underdeveloped countries,
248
who believe that they should be encouraged to produce more of their own food themselves, and who in some cases would like to export more of it, notably sugar, to the Community. I had intended to make some extended remarks about sugar but the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has said everything is necessary about that, and I entirely agree with his observations.
All this is duly noted in the report, which, as I have said, very rightly lays primary emphasis on the need to formulate an explicit agriculture and food trade policy. But it is rather difficult to see how this admirable objective can be obtained or successfully formulated in the absence of some rather radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy—more particularly, as is suggested in paragraph 67(a), by somehow regulating production and hence reducing surpluses. Some such action no doubt will become imperative in the course of time owing to the prospective shortage of funds with which to finance the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy. But I must say I do sometimes wonder how exactly the apparent miracle w ill be accomplished in practice. All the nations concerned are out to protect their own farmers by one means or another and most are reluctant to do so by individual means involving deficiency payments, even if that were not contrary to the whole present philosophy of the Community. Perhaps we might consider some arrangement—this may be a contentious suggestion: I do not know—whereby the agricultural Ministers, when they meet, are occasionally flanked by Foreign Office officials or Department of Trade officials, or even by Ministers, who might possibly regard debates on, for example, dairy products from, shall we say?, a rather more general point of view. I do not see why this should not be considered if the situation got really out of hand.
Another possibility—and I only throw this out—might be for the Ministers to attach more importance than they seem to do at present to any resolutions on the Common Agricultural Policy passed by a suitable majority in the European Parliament. After all, members of the European Assembly, whatever their political affiliations, of necessity regard European problems, including agricultural problems, from a broader and less nationalistic point of view than national Ministers. It may thus well be that some kind of compromise solution of agricultural difficulties could best be formulated by the Assembly, in close co-operation, of course, with the European Commission.
Anyhow, unless the EEC is to break up or become completely stagnant (which would be much the same thing) and God forbid it should happen—it really must, and quite soon, arrive at some solution of the agricultural problem, even if this should involve some partial reversion to deficiency payments, which I think is what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Soames. When and if that happy moment comes, then it will also be necessary to increase the "own resources" of the Community to a considerable extent, notably by increasing by some percentage the VAT contribution of members, in order to finance a regional policy, to say nothing of a common transport and industrial policy. The advantages of so doing would be so enormous that even national politicians, I believe, will have to contemplate such possibilities within what is commonly known as "the foreseeable future".

249
Perhaps as a start in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy,—and here I entirely agree again with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Soames—the Governments might agree on one thing: that is to say, some appreciable reduction in sugar production in the Community. If I heard him aright, I understand that some initiative has already been taken and a start has been made in that direction. I did not realise that when I drafted my remarks. As a contribution towards the development of the underdeveloped nations, such a gesture would be enormously welcomed and even if home farmers objected—as they would, of course, sugar beet being such a helpful and such a profitable crop the sacrifice would surely be toleraable if it were only moderate and general. This said, I hope the report will commend itself to this House and join the numbers of those reports which, increasingly, so we are told, or credibly informed, are consulted by experts all over the Community and notably in the European Parliament and in the Commission.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, Committee B, under the very able and distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, are to be congratulated on producing a most valuable report. It is an extraordinary fact, which the report brings out in its first paragraph, that the EEC treaty does not include provision for common agricultural trade policy in the way it does for common agricultural policy and common commercial policy. In my view, as I have said in previous speeches this is due to an obsession with production.
The disposal by the EEC of its surpluses on the world market at heavily subsidised prices has not only depressed world markets but has also displaced long-established exporters from markets they have served for many years. As the report states—and I quote—
"Issues of agricultural trade continue to irritate relations between the Community and some of its main trade partners."
This has affected not only developing countries but the developed. The need to find markets outside the Community for its surpluses and its policy of protecting its home market has led to a distortion of trade, as is so well stated by the World Bank in its 1981 development report. I quote again:
"Agricultural trade is everywhere severely distorted by national price support and protection policies, epitomised by the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy."
Article 110 of the Treaty of Rome includes the harmonious development of world trade, but this policy does not appear to have been followed in the case of agriculture.
One of the objectives of the treaty, as we all know, was to ensure the availability of supplies. This has led to the aim of self-sufficiency, though there was no explicit reference to self-sufficiency in the treaty. Increased production, encouraged by high support prices, and, in the case of some commodities, static consumption, has led inevitably to the creation of large surpluses. The EEC is now more than self-sufficient in many commodities; for example, dairy products, wheat, barley and sugar. But, as the Ministry of Agriculture pointed out in its evidence, Community self-sufficiency is to some extent illusory,
250
in that it is dependent on imported fertilisers, fuel and feedingstuffs. Also, producing internally in the Community what can be more efficiently produced elsewhere leads to a serious waste of total world resources.
I have already referred to the way in which the common agricultural policy has led to serious difficulties in our relationships with the Commonwealth and other countries. May I now be more specific and deal with sugar? This is of particular concern to developing countries. As I said in a speech on the common agricultural policy on 17th April, 1980, at column 447 of Hansard:
"For certain developing countries, sugar is their only export crop. It is often their sole means of earning vital foreign currency."
But it is not of concern only to developing countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, said recently, Australia and nine other governments have filed a comprehensive complaint in the GATT against the export of Community sugar at heavily subsidised prices. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, also said that the Australian Government has estimated that the EEC's share of the world "free market" export trade in sugar increased from a 7-year average of 7·8 per cent. in 1975 to 22·4 per cent. in 1978. A few days ago, the London daily price for raw sugar was £95 per tonne. The last time it was this low was in 1972.
Turning to dairy products, although the butter mountain has for the time being largely disappeared, its return may be imminent. As the Ministry of Agricuture, Fisheries and Food witness said in evidence:
"It has gone, but the shadow is still there. A series of reasons have done the butter mountain temporarily in. The butter foothill will be back with us in a year."
In the early days of the United Kingdom's entry into the Community, quite naturally New Zealand was very concerned about its effect on its agricultural exports. They are now largely reconciled to a smaller share of, for example, the United Kingdom's butter market compared to their exports before our entry. But what they are still very concerned about is the Community's subsidised competition, which has impeded New Zealand's efforts to develop satisfactory alternative markets.
I now turn to grain and to one of its greatest producers—namely, the United States—where some ex-perts predict the worst farming crisis since the Great Depression. They fear that a large proportion of the millions of bushels of grain which American farmers will reap this year will have to be added to the heavy stocks that have been carried over from the previous harvest. In these circumstances, one can understand the increasing importance of foreign markets.
According to the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the United States provides 45 per cent, of the world's exports of wheat and 70 per cent. of the world's exports of feed grains. Key markets, such as Latin America and China, are now receiving large quantities of Community subsidised wheat, jeopardising traditional United States trade with these countries.
There therefore seems, in my opinion, a strong case for the Community to discourage increased production resulting in more subsidised exports. Their original aim, over a period of years, of bringing wheat prices

251
nearer to the world level should not be forgotten. What is more, these prices should apply only to an agreed level of output or quota. The Economist, in a recent number, put the matter far more forcibly than I have:
"Raising prices to the producers of a glut that is harming your most powerful ally is bad politics and worse economics."
Of course, we should not pretend that the United States are entirely blameless in their agricultural policies. They recently introduced a system of import quotas for sugar to protect their own producers against depressed world prices, although they claim that it is only a temporary measure. They have also, as a consequence of their support programme, developed large dairy surpluses, which will reach an estimated 200,000 tonnes of butter, 371,000 tonnes of cheese and 545,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder by August. The US claim that they will not deal with these surpluses in the same way as the EEC, but it seems certain that they will eventually have to be unloaded on to the world market.
Other dangerous ideas have emanated from the Commission from time to time which would further harm our trade relations with other countries. One example is the proposal, shelved for the time being, to limit to 3 million tonnes a year the amount of corn gluten imported into the EEC from the USA without duty. The Americans view this idea with dismay. The possibility that they will take retaliatory action seems to be supported by their recent action over aids to the European steel industry. Another disturbing proposal in the EEC's efforts to limit its imports of cereal substitutes is further to restrict imports of manioc from Thailand and Indonesia. I have, on a previous occasion, spoken about the very serious potential consequences of such a measure for the economies of developing countries.
One further idea which is harmful to the interests of the third world countries is the imposition of a levy or tax on oil seeds and vegetable oils and fats. These are attempts to solve the surplus problem in one sector by increasing the price of competitive products—in other words, an attempt to increase the consumption of butter by making margarine dearer and, similarly, increasing the consumption of olive oil by making other vegetable oils dearer. Once again, consumer interests do not appear to be considered. These ideas seem to me to be the economics of the madhouse and must be resisted.
In conclusion, may I say that, as one who advocated and welcomed British entry into the Community and who believes it would be a major disaster, both on political and on economic grounds, for us to contemplate withdrawal, it gives me no pleasure to be a continuous critic either of the Commission or of the operations of the common agricultural policy. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the inadequacies of the present policies, and I thoroughly agree with the view of the Committee that it is desirable for an explicit agriculture and food trade policy to be formulated. More important is the need to limit the production of large surpluses, which are the root causes of the understandable complaints of our trading partners throughout the world.
Reform of the common agricultural policy has been
252
discussed now for a long time but little progress seems to have been made. Is it too much to hope that member countries will concentrate less on their narrow self-interest and live up to the harmonious development of world trade which is laid down in the Treaty of Rome?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, those of us who serve on Sub-committee B of the European Communities Select Committee have very good reason to appreciate the way in which our chairman, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, guides us through a series of complex issues. This subject of agricultural trade policy is but one example, and by no means the most simple, of the subjects with which he has helped us to deal, and we appreciate his chairmanship.
In opening this debate he has explained that the question before us was—and is in this debate—how the common agricultural policy affects the agriculture and food trade of non-member countries. Those non-member countries are, of course, very numerous and very varied. They range from the great granaries and meat-producing lands of the world to tiny, sugar-producing tropical islands. Therefore any analysis of the effect of the common agricultural policy on their trade and on their economies must be complex. This means that to make, briefly, any useful comment on this subject one has to be selective.
For my purpose, I have selected the effect of the Community on the agricultural economies of developing countries. Throughout the report there are many references to this aspect of the problem—so much so that I have reflected, somewhat ruefully, that perhaps the committee, in organising the sessions for the oral examination of expert witnesses, did not give sufficient specific attention to the agricultural trade of the third world. Certainly I am not complaining about the submission of written evidence in this respect from Government departments, because the document which we received from them was most comprehensive and a very valuable compendium. I have it in mind, rather, that it was not until the second half of the last sitting that we had the benefit of an expert witness on developing countries. On reflection, I think that was a pity. I am not blaming anybody—except, perhaps, myself—for this. I could and perhaps should have asked for more information, but I failed to do so. However, I should like, as I have said, to comment to a degree on the problem of the third world over this matter.
My first reflection about the EEC's trade relations with developing countries is that the developing countries, too, are a very varied bunch. It is not easy to draw any general conclusions, because the overall category which we call "developing countries" contains several sub-groups, with varying and very often opposing interests within themselves. There are, for instance, those developing countries which benefit from the LoméConvention and those which do not. There are those which import food and those which export food. There are those which are very poor and those which are not so poor. And 10 of the countries which the United Nations lists as very poor do not benefit from the LoméConvention. Those countries

253
include India and Bangladesh. So, as I say, it is very difficult to generalise.
In thinking of the effect of the common agricultural policy on the third world, it depends very much which particular commodity and which particular country one has in mind. Nevertheless, I do believe it is possible to discern three basic needs of almost all developing countries. It is perhaps useful to examine the effect of EEC policy in respect of each of these three. The first is access to the European market. The second is the need for stability of prices. The third concerns the sound development of third world economies, particularly their agricultural economies.
First, as to access, basically—as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and others—the common agricultural policy is protectionist. It protects European producers against competition from producers, including those in the third world, who have some form of comparative advantage and who, but for the common agricultural policy, would be able to enter the European market much more fully and much more profitably than they are allowed to do. The report points out, moreover, that, even from the European point of view, this protectionist nature of the common agricultural policy is self-defeating, because, as the report says at the top of page xxvi:
"[Liberalisation] would be the surest way for most developing countries [to increase] their ability to afford to buy EEC exports both of agricultural and industrial goods".
In addition to this general protectionist defect, there are other harmful effects of CAP protectionism against the Third World. For example, as I have suggested, the Lomé Convention sets one group of developing countries against another. With this in mind, the sub-committee in its earlier report on Community aid policy advocated extending the provision of the Lomé Convention to a much wider group of developing countries. Then, even when primary products from the Third World have reasonably free access to the Community, as indeed they do, there are undesirable barriers to the import of such products in a processed or semi-processed form. This must have the effect of preventing Third World countries from raising their economies to a higher level of development.
Thirdly, some developing countries with a climatic and cost advantage—such as Kenya—would be able to develop a European trade in, for example, vegetables but for the imposition of import levies under the CAP. On the question of commodity prices, it was on the basis of the opinion expressed by one of our witnesses, Dr. Christopher Stevens of the Overseas Development Institute, that our committee was able to include in its report what I believe to be a pertinent, critical comment on the attitude of the EEC to the question of international commodity agreements. This opinion of Dr. Stevens, which we endorsed, is set out in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report. It is to the effect that the Community has been helpful in joining those commodity agreements which suits its own interests—that is, when the commodities are those which the Community needs to import, such as coffee, cocoa and rubber. But the EEC has been unhelpful in not joining the sugar agreement, the benficiaries of which are likely to be developing countries and not
254
the sugar beet producers of Europe. That is perhaps a back-handed compliment to the Community but one which it deserves. I believe it is a criticism that is properly directed and I certainly support the report's firm recommendation in paragraph 67(d) that the Community should join the International Sugar Agreement.
Finally, there is the question of the development of agriculture within developing countries. In this connection I should like to call attention particularly to paragraphs 37, 38 and 60(e) of the report. These deal with that vexed question of cheap food exports from the Community to developing countries and the associated question of food aid. Opinions vary widely—and they did within the range of witnesses whom we saw—as to whether these policies are beneficial to developing countries or not. I believe the truth is contained in all three paragraphs to which I have referred. Obviously, both cheap food exports and food aid from the Community can in the short run be of benefit to developing countries, particularly those which need to import significant quantities of food. But there is the long-term danger that if they come to rely too much on such sources of food, they can, and here I am quoting from paragraph 37:
"…reduce the incentive for developing countries to invest in their own food and agricultural production for both domestic consumption and for export."
That is where the dilemma lies. On the one hand there is the obvious short term benefit to developing countries from cheap food and food aid but on the other hand there is the disincentive to develop soundly their own agricultural policies. Surely it ought to be possible to escape from this dilemma. If we can ensure careful administration of food aid projects and if developing countries do pursue sound internal policies, we can get the best of both worlds; both the short-term advantage of cheap food and the long term advantage of greater food production in developing countries. I am not saying this is easy, but I do believe it to be possible, and certainly that should be the objective.
The Community's aid and trade policies should have this problem in mind and those policies should be adapted and pursued with that objective in view. That is the summary of the Committee's conclusions as I see them with regard to the effect of the Community's agricultural trade policies for the welfare and development of the developing countries.
5.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Oram, began his speech he paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who, he said, guided the Committee through a series of most complicated subjects. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, did that. This evening, he has introduced a debate of vast complexity, and, if I may say so, I admire enormously the skill with which he managed to encompass such a wide range of matters in the opening speech with which he introduced this debate.
The debate is on agricultural trade policy. I am bound to say that I find this one of the most difficult debates to which to respond because, of course, there is no agricultural trade policy to start with. But as the

255
report itself makes out, there are in reality very many different strains of policy at issue here, centering on the provisions of the common agricultural policy itself. The Select Committee on the European Communities have indeed done a great service to the House in producing this report. For the first time, to my knowledge, one of the Houses of Parliament has before it a report which focuses specifically on the external aspects of the common agricultural policy. Because there are so many different factors at work the Committee has had a very difficult task of analysis, but one which has enabled your Lordships today to look at agricultural policy from a different perspective to that from which it is normally surveyed; that is, its impact on world trade. I should like to pay my modest tribute to the Committee and its members for the way in which they have pursued their work in such a wide and complicated field. Of course, the common agricultural policy is a vast subject. It has implications which touch on a whole host of separate subjects. Perhaps one might think for a moment about just what these are. On the one hand, one has domestic considerations, such as securing a fair living for our farmers, increasing agricultural efficiency, providing food at reasonable prices for consumers, and producing a commonality of régime between member states.
Those are very difficult problems—but that is only one side of the coin. The other side is the international aspects, such as our trading relationships between the Community and the developed countries, our responsibilities towards developing countries, not only their needs but also their exports, and achieving some balance between the need not to upset or to distort international trade and the need to dispose of food which is surplus to the internal requirements of the Community; and also, of course, the moral problem of the least developed countries and the hungry. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred, as he has on other occasions, to this aspect, because I think this is important. It is also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, that one tends to lump together by description the under-developed countries, whereas in fact their needs and requirements are different; therefore, it is dangerous to consider them as just one group requiring similar attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said that agricultural Ministers had had it their own way. As a result, he said, agricultural Ministers in the Community had agreed to high prices which had created too great surpluses, which therefore had to subsidise exports and which thereby interfered with the trade of others. I think in a large measure I would have some sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. My noble friend Lord Soames said that the common agricultural policy is frequently criticised, and he said that two ways in which it has been criticised were unfair, but the one which was fair was that the charge of disrupting trade with other countries did stand up. My noble friend went on to suggest that if Japanese cars were exported with subsidies on them we would all squeal like stuck pigs. I think that applies at the moment whether the cars have subsidies on them or not. But I think there is a difference here. I do not wish to dwell too much
256
upon it. The manufacture of cars is a totally commercial undertaking, maybe of economic significance, but the problem which we are discussing this afternoon is the problem of food, which is not only of national importance but human importance, and therefore the two are not wholly similar.
In the discussion of this problem I think we should not lose sight of one of the contradictory factors, which is that two-thirds of the world today is underdfed while the other one-third produces more than it can eat. And yet the countries of the two-thirds who are underfed cannot afford to purchase the surpluses from the one-third who produce them. This is a moral, economic, political and human problem of great size. I still find it astonishing to think, as I have said before to your Lordships, that there are now 50 per cent. more people in the world than there were at the end of the last war. And the plain fact is that they can only be fed by agriculture and by international agriculture. It is to me almost an obscenity and an absurdity that our surpluses should in fact be creating problems rather than solving them. It is this, I think, to which the Community in the fullness of time will have to direct its attention much more.
Your Lordships' report brings out very clearly that there are a number of apparent contradictions, and even conflicts, between the different interests which are affected by the common agricultural policy. It emphasises, quite correctly, that the Community's external trade policy in agricultural products is primarily a derivative of its internal agricultural policy. This is absolutely at the heart of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that European Community prices should not be too much above world prices. I think that is true, and it is something which this Government certainly have tried to impress upon the European Community in their negotiations. The common agricultural policy, in common with agricultural policies of many other countries, is formulated primarily with domestic considerations in mind. The fact that that was how the CAP started may be right or wrong, but that is the position in which we find ourselves. The Government continue to maintain their view that improvements in this are needed. We are indeed grateful for the contributions from your Lordships suggesting how this should come about.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, both referred to the prospect—one must put it no more than that, because I think it was a newspaper article—of a national slump in agriculture in America. This would be a frightening prospect and would affect many people and many industries. Clearly this is partly the effect of United States' interest rates and the general world recession. The United States traditionally produces about 60 per cent. of its agriculture for export. It has benefited from the large scale of its agriculture, which was established recently on virgin lands. The Community, though, is different, in that it has had to rid itself of the inheritance of the fragmentation of holdings and of inefficient farming practices which have been carried on over the centuries. Therefore, the conditions of over-supply on world markets are naturally a severe threat to the United States' agriculture and its exports. Perhaps it may be that all developed countries should

257
examine their agricultural production policies and not just the European Community alone.
Of course, in a perfect world agricultural output, whether within the European Community or outside it, would be geared to meet the world's requirements. But the fact is that it is an impossiblity in agriculture to get supply and demand in equilibrium. Natural forces such as the weather and disease are unpredictable and uncontrollable. And a small shortage over requirements has a totally electric effect on price and on demand, an effect which extends much further than just to the commodity which is in shortage. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordship that in criticising the common agricultural policy—and heaven knows we are all entitled to do it and it is very much open to criticism in many spheres—for permitting surpluses, or even planning for surpluses, is not necessarily fair, because it can be regarded as a prudent insurance exercise. In times, and in commodities, of surplus this does affect others, and it does and can distort trade. I do not seek to excuse the Community's chronic surpluses, of which many of your Lordships have spoken, of some very important commodities. Indeed, it has been the policy of this Government to try to get the Community to reduce its surpluses and to lower the prices of those commodities which are in structural surplus.
Lord Soames: My Lords, would my noble friend permit me to intervene? I think it would be a pity if he left with us the view that Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that, to take, for instance, the production of sugar having risen from 5 million to 9 million tonnes over a period of a few years, was, to use his own words, a sensible insurance policy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am coming to sugar in a few moments. I would not wish my noble friend, nor would my noble friend wish, to distort or put a wrong impression on what I have said. All I was trying to say was that to allow for, or even to plan for, a surplus in general is not necessarily a wrong thing, because shortages, which are the other side of the spectrum, can be even more of a problem. But I will come to the question of sugar later.
Against that background some kind of conflict of interest between domestic producers and those in other countries is, in fact, inescapable. It is clear—and the committee are right to emphasise this—that the Community cannot exist in isolation even behind the walls of the common agricultural policy. The Community is, if it is not the major world trader, certainly a major world trader, and it has a duty to act responsibly in the conduct of its affairs. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that as a general principle. The difficulty is interpreting this principle in day-to-day terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, emphasised that the committee recommended that the Commission and the Council of Ministers should be charged with the task of producing an explicit agricultural trade policy. While I appreciate the feeling behind that, I think that it is precisely because of the variety of responsibilities and the impacts which arise from the combination of agricultural and commercial policies, that the makings of an agricultural trade policy is an almost impossibly difficult thing to do.
258
Let me elaborate a little. It is wrong to suppose that there is a single world market in agricultural products generally, with a single set of trading relationships. In some commodities, for example, the Community is a net importer; as regards others it is a net exporter. In a few cases—for instance, in pork and bacon—most of the world trade takes place within the Community. Indeed, it is generally true that across the whole spectrum of trade, member states of the Community have their largest market within the Community. Therefore, while trade with third countries remains vitally important, in Community terms it is a relatively small proportion of total Community trade and it would not necessarily be right to subordinate all other policy considerations to that. Account obviously has to be taken of different interests in each case according to its merits. That is what the Community's frantically complicated tariff and levy systems, attempt to do. They may not always succeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that agricultural ministers should be flanked by foreign ministers and by ministers of trade. I would only assure him that agricultural ministers do not operate in a vaccum of their own; they consult with other members of their Government and they merely represent the Government as a whole. It will not have escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that there was an occasion only a few months ago when the United Kingdom took a line which was individualistic because there were other considerations to be borne in mind and which caused the drama that we had over the last price fixing. Therefore, he would be erroneous to think that agricultural ministers operated on their own.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am relieved and surprised to hear it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have achieved something by this debate and I am glad to be able to enlighten the noble Lord. I never thought in all my years that I would ever be able to do that.
The report rightly refers to the Community's relations with developing countries. Clearly special considerations must apply here and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, addressed his mind to that particulat fact. No other developed country—if one can consider the EEC as a country—operates a scheme which is comparable to the Lomé Convention under which virtually all agricultural exports of 61 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries enter the Community duty free. That is quite a concession and it is a recognition of the vital needs of these developing countries.
My noble friend Lord Soames and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to sugar. It is perfectly true that sugar exports from the Community have gone up 5.8 times since about 1973. The Community's sugar exports have gone up. it is perfectly true that sugar production in the Community has expanded. But under the Lomé Convention the Community now imports 1.7 million tonnes of sugar from the developing countries and part of the agreement, was that by taking this large amount from the developing countries' sugar production into an already tight market, the Community would be allowed to export a similar amount in addition to its traditional levels. So the Community does act, I hope, responsibly towards

259
developing countries as regards sugar. No other developed country or group does as much. The Community is, indeed, at present holding nearly 2 million tonnes of sugar off the market in order to try and regulate it. My noble friend Lord Soames said that we ought to have production quotas on some other items.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend again, but before he proceeds I should like to raise one matter. It would be a mistake to try and take too much credit for importing 1.7 million tonnes from the Lomé countries, of which 1.3 million tonnes come as a hangover from our own Common-wealth Sugar Agreement, as we are exporting 5.4 million tonnes. To import 1.7 million tonnes because we are committed so to do, and then to go on and produce so much more at home as to be exporting 5½ million tonnes is not really much of a dividend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly fair, as he always is, but he will be the first to recognise that there was an expected expansion in the sugar market.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, why?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says "why"? I am saying that there was an expected expansion in the sugar market which, for a variety of reasons, did not come about. It so happens that the Community's system has resulted in a surplus of sugar and that I entirely accept. It may be that one ought to try and reduce the surplus of sugar in the Community.
Lord Gladwyn: Hear, hear!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is so vociferous in saying, "Hear, hear", will, I know, repeat, "Hear, hear", when I tell him that there was an occasion when the Community exported sugar and made a profit on so doing of some considerable sums of money. Of course, it is not easy to get the balance right and we want to see the balance right. It may be that the imposition of quotas, not only on sugar but on other commodities as well, might be a possibility and it is an interesting example which we could try and follow. However, I would only draw the following distinction. It is easier with sugar because most Community countries did have some form of sugar quota because the sugar which was produced had to be processed and had to go through factories. That is not so with other commodities and it would be very difficult to get commodities, such as wheat, to go under a quota system. However, it is certainly a point worth looking at.
The committee suggested, but I do not think that your Lordships have suggested it so much this evening, that the degree of preference which the Lomé Convention allows, discriminates against those developing countries which are not in the scheme. This is, of course true, but those who are in the scheme are there precisely because of the Community's sense of responsibility towards those who are our former colonial and dependent territories. One obviously cannot
260
have it both ways. If one recognises these historical responsibilities, then one has to make special provisions for them.
But there is for those who are not in the Lomé Convention, the Generalised Scheme of Preferences. It is true that this is less generous than the Lomé Convention, but the Generalised Scheme of Preferences does extend to a total of 146 developing countries, and the 36 which are classified as least developed benefit from entirely free access to virtually all the products under the scheme. The committee made some specific recommendations about it. The first of those referred to self-sufficiency—a matter to which I think others of your Lordships have referred this evening and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, certainly insinuated that we should give less emphasis to it
The Government do not support the pursuit of self-sufficiency—whether it is in the United Kingdom or in the Community—just for its own sake. But a certain amount of protection for home production must be justified, if only on strategic and economic grounds. One merely has to look back at the recent events in the South Atlantic to see that one of the countries which has been a traditional supplier—and an important one—of beef and other food to us is now caught up in a different set of circumstances. We cannot be too dependent, and it would be short-sighted to discount the strategic value of adequate home production.
I would emphasise that the price levels of the Community have to take factors of this kind into account. I do not wish to dwell on that unduly tonight, but I would just comment that the price levels, which are fixed, are, of course, one of the major factors behind the generation of surpluses, and this, in turn, lies at the root of many of the problems of external trade. I would remind almost every noble Lord—certainly the noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury, Lord Gladwyn, Lord Soames and Lord Greenhill (that is almost everyone, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I might have missed him out inadvertently)—that the Government have a record of constantly badgering the Community not to increase prices over and above a reasonable limit and particularly those in structural surplus, because this creates the very surpluses to which this evening your Lordships have been addressing your minds and about which you have been so concerned. The percentage of the Community budget which is spent on agriculture is now about 65 per cent. as against 80 per cent. or so a few years ago. That is a reasonable and encouraging improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, referred to the introduction of supply agreements, and he referred to it with caution. This is also a matter which concerned the Committee. I can tell the noble Lord that the Government are not convinced that these are necessary. The Community already has a wide range of ways in which it can promote its agricultural exports—such as refunds, which can be prefixed some months ahead. I agree with my noble friend Lord Soames that there is a risk in introducing "supply" or "long-term" contracts in that these could increase, rather than reduce, the costs of the Community's exports. By making a commitment to supply certain agricultural goods, the Community might appear to be

261
encouraging producers to increase their production yet further, and so to continue the production of surpluses. A further cause for concern is the fact that the introduction of such agreements could clearly upset some of the Community's major trading partners. In any further discussions of supply contracts there are a number of aspects which we shall want to watch very closely.
I know that there have been complaints—and your Lordships have mentioned them—in GATT against the Community's use of export refunds. Her Majesty's Government have always sought to ensure that the Community respects its international trading obligations, especially those under GATT. We must be careful not to prejudge the outcome of the current cases which are being considered by GATT, but I think I must point out that GATT does allow the use of export subsidies for agricultural products, subject to certain conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, referred to the complaint on sugar in GATT, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Ten countries have made a new complaint under GATT rules on European sugar exports. The normal procedure for disputes under GATT is for them first to ask for consultations. The European Community has agreed to bilateral talks with these complainants and we shall have to await the outcome of those discussions. Your Lord-ships should also be aware that the United States, which had previously complained about European Community sugar and other matters this year, has, in fact, withdrawn that complaint.
As I have said, we have a number of imports from the Lomé countries. While on the point of GATT, I would disagree with one part of the report, where it says that the Community has not been ready to discuss in GATT the effects of the common agricultural policy, or to take action when it is ruled against. The fact is that apart from that to which I have just referred, the only recent GATT ruling on export subsidies was in 1979 in the case which was mounted by Australia and Brazil on sugar. This called only for discussions to take place, and they did so exhaustively up until a month or two ago when the cases were finally closed. The conclusion of the GATT panel which studied this was that there was a risk that Community policy did not conform with the rules of GATT, and the Community immediately changed that policy so as to conform. Therefore, I do not think that it is correct to state that the European Community will not discuss the effects of the CAP on GATT or change its policy. It has done so, it does do so, and it is doing so.
With regard to the international commodity agreements, these have to be considered on their merits in the light of the Community's position as an importer or an exporter and in relation to the other countries concerned. On the specific question of Community accession to the International Sugar Agreement, to which two noble Lords referred—and I think that, curiously enough, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was one of them—it is a fact that the United Kingsom has always been in favour of this, provided that equitable terms can he negotiated.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, also referred to maize gluten. In our view, maize gluten feed is not a straight substitute for cereals. It is high in protein, and the Community has a large deficit of protein for animal
262
feed. Raising the levy on this would push up costs to our livestock industry while doing little for the cereals sector. Therefore, we do not favour the proposal on agricultural grounds. In addition, it is clear that if the Community restricted this trade, the United States would also take reprisals on some other lines of trade. In our view it makes no sense to start such a confrontation. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the latest news which we have from Brussels is that, in response to pressure from the United Kingdom and from other delegations, the proposal appears to have been shelved.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Sainsbury, referred to Thailand and to manioc. The European Community has initialled an agreement with Thailand over manioc and this maintains the current trade levels. In return for restraining expansion of current Thai production levels, which in any case had been distorting their own trade, they will be able to be in receipt from the Community of some offers of help for future development of their own agriculture.
In this debate we have covered a very wide field over what is a very complex subject and over which the issues are conflicting. I believe that the committee's report has done a great deal to help and has done a great service in exposing these questions. It is quite clear from what has been said that the tentacles of the common agricultural policy extend far wider than just European farmers and European consumers. Their influence across world trade affects an enormous range of different interests. I think that your Lordships' debate this evening has highlighted some of the major areas of difficulty and, in that respect, it will have proved very helpful.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. There are already two debates stacked up behind us and the participants in those debates have been very patient. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his comprehensive reply to the debate and I would thank the speakers who have participated. We have had two former Ministers of Agriculture, one former Minister of Overseas Development, an internationally acclaimed expert on European affairs and the most successful and admired food retailer. All these have added greatly to the authority of the report, and I acknowledge now to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the committee was wrong in hesitating to bring this subject for debate on the Floor. I think that the debate has been extremely useful. Thank you very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Derelict Land Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

ECC 12th Report: Revision of the European Regional Development Fund
5. 51 p. m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move That this House takes note of the Report of the European

263
Communities Committee on Revision of the European Regional Development Fund (12th Report, 1981–82, HL. 126).
I hope in initiating this debate that I will not be regarded as being presumptious, since I am not a member of the committee. Indeed, the committee in their report did not recommend your Lordships to debate this most recent of their reports, perhaps because they were too modest or perhaps because they felt that the last debate was too recent. It is only just over a year ago since the Regional Fund was debated in your Lordships' House, on 13th April last year.
On that occasion my noble friend Lord Banks, who I am pleased to see is going to join in the debate again tonight, said:
"I hope that when the Select Committee produce the next of their excellent reports on this subject, in 1985 or whenever it is, they will be able to report progress".—[Official Report; col. 805.]
The items on which he hoped for progress were:
"support for a very much larger Regional Fund as part of a larger Community budget … support for a co-ordinated regional policy including a much increased proportion of the Regional Fund distributed on a non-quota basis, and support for more direct formal access to the Commission for regional authorities and agencies".—(col. 804.)
Had I been here I would have supported that speech most wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, by sheer coincidence, that was the day before announcements of a new list of peerages was given to a waiting world, of which I was one, so sadly I was not able to take part in that debate.
When it was suggested that I might initiate this debate today I was happy to do so for three reasons. First of all, I have always had a great interest in regional government in the United Kingdom. I was in fact chairman of a committee of Liberal candidates as long ago as 1964 which produced a report on regional government in the North-West of England. I am a powerful believer of a federal United Kingdom within a federal Europe, but I do not propose to pursue that in great detail tonight, but I merely state my position.
I also am pleased to initiate this debate because I believe that it is important that when there is something good to say about the European Community we ought to go on record and say it. After listening to at least part of the last debate, I hope that in some ways we can make some positive contribution to burnishing the image of the European Community in this debate. Secondly, it is a good thing that we in this House should show the good work that is done by your Lordships' House, particularly when it is under attack from all sides, and it seems to me that the Select Committee on the European Community is a good example, perhaps a prime example, of the excellent work which your Lordships can do in Parliament. I think that this report is highly commendable, and I am sure that I shall be joined from all sides of the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his hardworking committee on the work that they have done. They certainly deserve our heart-felt thanks. It is a lucid report on a complex subject.
May I return to what my noble friend Lord Banks said in that last debate. I believe that there has been genuine progress in the Commission's thinking on the basis of what he said and what was included in the
264
14th Report of the 1980–81 Session which was debated last time. It is true that there is no significant or perceptible increase in the size of the fund. It ramains foolishly low. It is true that behind the report there is the sad fact that regional inequalities are widening in growth, in income, and in employment. One is reminded that that was what lay behind the 14th Report debated last year, and led the committee at that stage to recommend, among other things, the inclusion of industrial projects in broader development programmes; the suggestion that the ERDF support should be confined to those member states who were below the Community average level on a common criteria in order to focus aid where it was most desirable and most needed.
I think it is true to say that the new Commission proposals go at least some way in these directions. We have the recommended introduction of programme contracts. Although there are some doubts about the contract aspect of that phrase, whether it is over-legalised, nevertheless I think that the idea of programmes versus individual projects is something which will find support in your Lordships' House, and certainly found support from the Committee. There is indeed the restriction of quota payments to countries who are below the average of an index based on GDP and employment. It is, of course, one of the facts that this country is one of the bottom four in that league table. It is something which should constantly give us pause.
The other thing is that there is the recommendation that the non-quota payments should be increased to 20 per cent. Certainly from these Benches all those recommendations are welcome. We give a particular welcome to some aspects of the regulations drafted by the Commission which seem, to me at least, to be a genuine attempt to increase transparency, or visibility—I am not sure which is the proper word; I think they probably both mean the same thing even though they are contradictory—to additionality and to local authority involvement.
Of course, there remains enormous problems to which the committee has drawn our attention. The question of the exclusion of Yorks and Humberside, and parts of Devon and Cornwall, to which I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord O' Hagan, may refer at a later stage in the debate. Certainly he has my support there. There is indeed, as the committee says, a need for flexibility. It is worrying that some of the decisions are based apparently on out-of-date statistics. Some of them are as much as four years old. One of the things that we hope to hear from the Minister in his speech is what plans the Government have to try to improve the flexibility in that area.
There is the problem, particularly to this country, of the lack of regional authorities in this country. Again, that would make an interesting debate to be initiated from these Benches. There is the problem of the size of the standard English regions in comparison with those in Germany and France, which all add to some of the distortions and some of the anomalies which are being thrown up in the United Kingdom.
There is, of course, the question of black spots. I should like to ask the Minister how he envisages this problem being handled. May I quote from the

265
committee's report where it says, on page xxi, paragraph 40.10:
"Aid for black spots 'from the non-quota section should rest on the individual needs of those areas, whether or not the United Kingdom Government has granted them assisted area status".
We are anxious to hear from the Government how far they are prepared to go down that road.
Then there is the vexed question of additionality. It is a continuing problem and I detect from the tone of the committee's report that they are becoming somewhat resigned to never getting to the nub of the problem. But it seems to me that Parliament cannot have blind faith in the Government in a matter of that sort; it is not the job of Parliament to take the Government on trust in such matters, and the onus is on the Government at some stage to prove that additionality is part of their policy and is taking place. I say that, not just for basic reasons, as one would do from an Opposition Bench, but because for those of us who are interested in convincing our fellow countrymen that the European Community is working, it is important that it is seen to be working, particularly in areas like the Regional Fund. On the question of additionality, it is not seen to be working at the moment and the onus is on the Government to try to increase the visibility of that additionality. I well understand that it is extremely difficult to prove one way or the other, but if we believe in the fund, it must be seen to be putting its resources where they are needed.
It is difficult to escape the view that the Treasury sponge is gleefully mopping up some of the gravy. That feeling is somewhat reinforced, I would say, by the evidence of the Department of Industry on page 2 of the addenda to the report, where, in the third paragraph, they say:
"The exclusion of certain United Kingdom assisted areas is unwelcome and we shall certainly resist it. However, if the inclusion of such areas seemed likely to result in a significant reduction in the United Kingdom's overall receipts from the Community, we should obviously have to consider that situation very carefully".
That is a somewhat revealing quotation, and it was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, in the questioning on page 8 of that evidence, questions 26 and 27. Again the Department of Industry reply is extremely revealing, for it says:
"At the end of the day, the overall consideration must be the national interest—the overall national interest—and, if the inclusion of these areas the Commission has excluded meant the United Kingdom was going to get less money as a whole, I think the answer is fairly obvious".
That is a fairly obvious answer to the question, but it seems to indicate a central Government view of the matter, one that is prepared to sacrifice black spots and regions, be they Cornwall or Corby, if at the end of the day the going gets too tough; and I worry that perhaps the Government are not applying themselves quite so firmly to the problem as they should.
With that emphasis on the central coffers, I wonder whether we are to be surprised that people remain sceptical about additionality.
I have a slightly critical comment of the committee's response in paragraph 18 on page xii of the report, where they say, talking about that reply from the Department of Industry:
"The Committee well understand this point of view. They believe nonetheless that the rights of the poorer United Kingdom
266
regions to benefit from the ERDF should be determined on the merits of their case."
I wish they had put that point rather more powerfully; they might have been rather more critical of the Department of Industry in their evidence at that stage.
I am also slightly critical of conclusion 40 at page xx, where, talking about the expansion of the non-quota section, the report says:
"The expansion of the non-quota section is the necessary complement to an increasingly geographically concentrated quota section; but it will be difficult to distribute 20 per cent. of the entire ERDF under the non-quota section over the next three years".
Nobody doubts that it will be difficult—I think it will be extremely difficult, and all the evidence they received tended to reinforce that point of view—but I wish the committee had taken a more positive view over the increase in the non-quota section. They might well have said that they really believed that 20 per cent. was the direction in which we should be going, because, frankly, I do not think it is up to us to offer excuses as to why that cannot work, particularly if it is based on pure administrative problems. That is a problem for the Government and the Community to solve, and we should state our case more clearly; and certainly from these Benches we would state quite clearly that we believe that the non-quota section should be increased to 20 per cent.
With those two minor, though important, caveats, I commend the report to your Lordships and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and particularly to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Revision of the European Regional Development Fund (12th Report, 1981–82, H.L. 126). —(Lord Tordoff.)
6.6 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for initiating this debate and for the thoughtful speech he made, and to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who I am glad to see is in his place, and his colleagues on Sub-Committee A for their report, which is to be read together with their larger report which was debated here on 13th April of last year. It is unnecessary in the light of that debate to traverse the whole ground again. However, during the last 12 months there have been changes and, on the whole, although they are not great changes, they point in the right direction.
It is encouraging to note that some of the proposals of the committee have been accepted by the Commission, as is pointed out in paragraph 11. The restriction of the quota system to four countries, including our own, appears prima facie to be a helpful development and we should be grateful if the Minister would say what additional assistance in practice that will bring us. I would refer specifically to the words at the end of paragraph 10(b):
"The revised United Kingdom share of 29.3 per cent. of the proposed smaller (80 per cent.) quota section is close in absolute terms to the present 23 8 per cent. of the larger (95 per cent.) quota section which it replaces".
In other words, it seems there is to be no more cash

267
for the United Kingdom than before. France, Germany and the others are to receive little or nothing, as the table on page 7 shows, and the money saved is to go to Greece, as is shown in table 2 at the end of paragraph 10. I do not object to money going to Greece—that is something we must accept, now that Greece is in the Community—but it must be made clear that we are not to receive any great benefit as a result of the readjustment.
That really goes to the root of the long-standing British complaint. We are net contributors to the budget and seem likely to remain so until there are radical changes, especially in the common agricultural policy. The Regional Fund is one source from which the United Kingdom could obtain resources to balance the account. Indeed, as the report reminds us, it was set up with that very much in mind when we entered the Community. But the fund and the sums involved are small by comparison with CAP expenditure, and the report reveals that we are unlikely to receive more cash from the ERDF. I think it is important for that point to be made absolutely clear at the very outset of this debate.
The argument about the budget will, of course, continue, and it must not be expected that the ERDF in its present form and size will help to resolve the problem. However, that does not mean that ERDF is of no value; on the contrary, it can be of great assistance to those regions which have serious structural problems. The committee accepted the two indicators used by the Commission to determine the eligibility of regions for ERDF aid; that is, regional GDP per head and the rates of long-term unemployment. Those seem to me to be the proper criteria.
However, in paragraph 17 of the report the Committee strongly criticises the use of only 11 "standard" regions in the United Kingdom, pointing out that that,
"appears grossly to understate the economic difficulties of many areas"—
of this country—
"where there are large pockets of structural underdevelopment within relatively prosperous 'standard' regions".
The committee points to Corby and Cornwall, and there are other places as well. It urges the Commission to show greater flexibility and suggests that the Government should provide more detailed regional statistics to the Commission in future. I hope that they will do so, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that important recommendation.
Again, paragraph 33 draws attention to the views of the Association of District Councils on the black spots to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred in his speech. The committee takes the view that these unfortunate areas should not be discriminated against by the new non-quota section, and that their case at Community level should rest on the merits, whether or not the Government have granted them assisted area status.
Another case in point is that of mid-Wales, and I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has announced additional help. I think that it was announced in a Written Answer on 28th June. Will the Minister be good enough to confirm that the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Wales will in fact qualify mid-Wales to receive assistance under the ERDF?
268
This is a very important point. In your Lordships' House on Monday the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, repeated a Statement made by his right honourable friend, and we were grateful for that. We then had an exchange of questions, but I think the crucial point is whether or not the measures bring mid-Wales within the ambit of assistance from the ERDF.
The committee also maintains that the main responsibility for the black spots rests with the Government and that it is from this quarter that local authorities must receive redress at the end of the day.
Another matter of importance to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred in his speech is "additionality" —I am attracted to the principle; I dislike the word—and the report goes into some detail about it. The committee is quite specific in paragraph 4(a), where it reminds us of what it said last year. The committee's Fourteenth Report,
"criticized the reluctance of member governments to allow grants from the ERDF to be added to what they had already allocated for regional aid in their national Budgets. Disrespect for this additionality principle called into question the value of the ERDF and acted as a brake upon its further expansion".
That I think was a very serious criticism, and one which I hope the Government will have taken seriously, though nothing seems to have happened since then.
In paragraphs 31 and 32 of the report the committee makes further recommendations, and, if I may, I shall quote from this part of the report as well. The committee states:
"the present methods of distributing the ERDF quota section finance conceal what little additionality there is, thereby making a strong case for change. The new Regulation could provide the means for achieving greater additionality, especially using the programme contract approach. This appears to be the view of other Member States.…If the programme approach does not succeed in achieving greater additionality, it would at least provide greater visibility to the financial contributions made by the ERDF. That would be a significant gain. The Committee emphasize that the goal of additionality is vital if the ERDF is to have a future and if the credibility of the Community's regional policy is to be maintained".
Those are strong and positive words from the committee, and they call for a clear response from the Government. I was disappointed by the evidence of Ministry officials on this point. They were vague and inconclusive. I do not blame the officials; they were merely reflecting the Government's uncertainty on the matter. The impression is given that the Government do not wish to be precise on the principle of additionality. Therefore, may I ask the Minister a plain question? It is this: are the Government committed to the principle that the regions are entitled to receive the assistance from the ERDF on top of any assistance that they may receive under the United Kingdom's own regional aid programme? A plain answer to that question would clear the air considerably.
Furthermore, the important section on programme contracts also calls for some clarification. I understand that the Government regard these as complicated and as additional burdens on an already overworked Civil Service. Well, I sympathise with that view. The Minister's reaction to this matter will be appreciated. Would it not be possible to use the services not only of government departments—the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office—but also of the Welsh Development Agency, the Scottish Development Agency, and the National

269
Enterprise Board, as well as local authorities, at both county and district level? They would be glad to participate, and I note that this point is recognised by the committee in its report.
I should now like to draw attention to the tables at the end of the report. They make very depressing reading, and they show how vital it is that the resources of the fund should be used effectively and urgently. For example, Table 3, giving the combined indices for the regions, provides a picture of the problem and the need. I hope that I may be permitted to point out that, while many regions are hard hit, Wales has the worst combined figure. Last Friday I attended a meeting of the newly-formed Welsh Committee for Economic and Industrial Affairs, and it is clear that local government in Wales is deeply concerned that the control exercised by the Government has resulted in a failure to maximise the benefits of European funds, especially the ERDF.
One point made was that local authorities receiving grant for infrastructure projects are not permitted to spend more than the pre-award budget. The net effect is to replace loan sanction with grant—a saving to the Treasury without any extra projects being initiated. In my view that is not a good development.
It seems also that the Commission's objective and our own Government's policies to some extent are in conflict. Let me explain. The Government's imposition of stringent controls on local government, limiting local authority expenditure within centrally determined limits, is clearly at variance with the Commission's initiative. The two do not go together. While we understand what the Government are doing, I think it is important that the effect of their actions on the Commission's policy should be made plain to the House and to the country, and I should appreciate the Minister's reaction to this criticism. If it is true, then we may as well know where we stand.
I also assume that the Government's wish to control stands in the way of any possibility of direct dealings between the local authorities and the Commission. That, too, is a matter of much discussion within local government today. It was also made clear to me last Friday that local authorities are ready to co-operate in the development of programme contracts under the direction and guidance of the Government themselves.
In considering the ERDF we should not overlook the importance of the European Social Fund. The relationship between the two funds should be carefully monitored to ensure that both have distinct areas of operation and that resources are not wasted. Local authorities have made valuable use of the ESF indirectly through the Manpower Services Commission's special programmes. In my view that has been very effective work indeed.
We should also consider the importance of integrated development plans, such as the plan for the Western Isles of Scotland. Here agricultural aid, the ERDF, and the ESF can come together, and I should like to know whether the Government believe that this kind of co-ordination is desirable and should be supported.
Finally, my Lords, may I say that we are grateful to the committee for a very instructive and valuable report. May I also urge the Government to make the maximum use of the ERDF with an energy and an urgency which matches the gravity of the problems facing many parts of the country.
6.20 p.m.
Lord O' Hagan: My Lords, before the House addressed itself to the problems raised in the report submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his committee there was a brief moment when a Bill was read a first time—a Bill entitled the Derelict Land Bill. There is something particularly appropriate about the conjunction of that Bill and this debate, because the ERDF (the European Regional Development Fund) is an attempt by the European Economic Community to prevent dereliction in the more remote, the more disadvantaged and the more handicapped areas.
These problems cannot be solved by national means alone, and neither can they be solved wholly by the European Economic Community; but the ERDF is an aspect of the Common Market social conscience, and if we are now beginning to clear up some of the remains and the consequences of the first Industrial Revolution, and to re-equip and restore the social and economic balance in remote areas where natural resources are weak and communications are difficult and very expensive, then, as was the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we must be glad that the EEC looks at the human consequences of economics, the social aspects of the greater freedom in the distribution of wealth, as well as concentrating on the pure free market and the creation of greater wealth by the exchange of goods and services. So I believe that the case for remaining in the European Community depends in part on extending, making more efficient and consolidating the European Regional Development Fund, and I am grateful to the committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for providing us with a background brief as well as the occasion to discuss this issue.
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is absent today I can say with some degree of safety that I agreed with nearly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had to say. It is reassuring that, although we approach the way in which the Community and the Regional Fund itself works from different political angles, in the House there is, I sense already, particularly from the report, a convergence as to what is best for Britain when we are looking at the Development Fund's future. I would not want to traverse the ground which has already been covered by the two noble Lords, so I will merely make one or two marginal comments on some of the things that they have said.
The accessibility of Brussels to local authorities is an important question, but it is not one where the problems are readily appreciated by every local authority in Britain. The number of staff in the Commission (as we should be grateful) is under 10,000, and those concerned with regional development are a very small fraction of that 10,000, a large number of whom are translators. The logistical problems of organising visits continuously from local authorities in 10 member states are very severe; and I hope the Government will consider giving guidance, through the Association of District Councils or the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, or whatever, on the best manner in which aplications can be made, and some understanding as to why it is difficult to get your place in the queue. There are simply too few people in the Commission

271
to give easy access to everybody when they want it the first time. So I would add that note of caution.
Another point that I think noble Lords may feel worth pursuing is this. Grants are given from this fund for a wide variety of projects throughout the United Kingdom, yet many people know nothing about what has been given from Brussels, or what it was meant to do. They are not aware that a quarter of the local fire station or one-third of an advanced factory can be directly attributed to help from the European Economic Community. I wonder whether my noble friend would consider encouraging local authorities, where they are in receipt of moneys under the ERDF, to put up a simple plaque recording that the money has come from Brussels. Some particularly progressive local authorities, such as Devon County Council, do this already, but it is not uniform. I am sure that your Lordships, while regretting the pursuit of uniformity for its own sake, would agree that some form of token indication of gratitude would help the public to know that some of the money that they are so concerned about when they read about the amount that we pay into the Community actually returns in the form of helpful projects.
My Lords, I say no more about additionality except to express the feeling that the Government are a persistent sinner in this regard, and that the prospect of redemption is being ever delayed. If there is anything that my noble friend can tell me to startle me, I shall look forward to it, but I do not expect it. It is particularly useful that we are having this debate today, because the new fund regulations are reaching a conclusion. Rumour has it that there is going to be a Council of Ministers' meeting in July on this proposal; others say it is going to be wrapped up in the Summit. I wonder whether my noble friend is able to give any clue as to when a decision is likely to be taken, or at least when a ministerial meeting is likely to have the new ERDF regulations on the agenda.
There are two other points in the margin. I share the scepticism of the committee that even if the Council of Ministers were able to agree on the non-quota section being extended to 20 per cent., it might be difficult to use all the money. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not see that as any obstacle against trying, and I see a particular urgency in this country to use some Regional Fund money for those areas that do not happen to fall into the zones used by British Government statisticians for regional purposes. We all know that they are imperfect, and it is a pity that all black spots are excluded. I would welcome reassurance from my noble friend that it is the policy of the Government to allow an increase in the number of projects associated with tourism which can qualify under the Regional Fund for assistance from Brussels. At one point there was some doubt about this. It seems to have been dealt with, but I should like confirmation.
I agreed very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said when he was reminding us about the difficulties of measuring and the awkwardness of statistics in regard to regional assistance. The standard regions are very awkward for Brussels. They are clumsy, they are big; and, as he indicated, they tend to conceal within them pockets of poverty which are
272
drowned in a sea of wealth. This is certainly true of the South-West. The region itself contains some very striking examples of poverty, with unemployment rates up to 25 per cent. in parts of Cornwall. From a document recently produced by the Devon and Cornwall Joint Committee—a committee of both county councils—it is clear that the average net annual income in Devon and Cornwall, in the assisted areas, is lower than the average net annual income in Northern Ireland. That is not a figure that one would immediately believe, but it is quite true; and when one looks at the statistics of the average weekly earnings, particularly of women, one sees that the position in the extreme South-West is the lowest, bar one, in England.
It is not the steel-hearted and cold-blooded men of Brussels who have looked at Camborne or at North Devon and said, "You people who are unemployed (or, if you are employed, are on low rates of pay) cannot have money from us". It is not Commissioner Giolitti and his team who have studied the statistics of wealth and have said that Humberside and other areas in Britain under threat were too rich; they made no decisions of the statistics of their own; the statistics were those that we supplied and as, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, they are now out-of-date and in the case of the South-West and elsewhere the subdivisions of the map do a gross disservice to the nature of poverty in certain areas.
I would suggest to my noble friend that with his recent experience in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and knowing the difficulty of reassuring people in this country that membership of the Community is really worthwhile, were the British Government to allow areas in the South-West and elsewhere in the country (for purely arbitrary statistical reasons) to be swept off the ERDF map, it would play a significant part in those areas in creating further hostility towards the EEC; and no doubt the MEPs would be blamed but certainly Her Majesty's Government as well and I think it would undermine the position of the Government in trying to influence opinion in the Community.
On opinions in this country about the Community—I do not want to speak for too long—I think that your Lordships would welcome an up-to-date account of the progress of the new Regional Development Fund Regulations. Where do we stand? How firm are the Government going to be? The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, recounted some parts of the reports. I received a Written Answer recently in which my noble friend Lord Trenchard informed me:
"The proposal for the exclusion of the English regions is … unwelcome, and we are resisting it firmly".
I should like to know what is meant by "firmly". While we still have the veto in the Community, will the Government veto the proposal unless these regions are reinstated? I think that this is something on which we would welcome confirmation. As I understand it, these proposals are severely unpopular in many other member states and therefore a change in what is suggested so far is necessary and likely, from their point of view; and if they are going to get some concession, then we should, too.
In the next debate, we shall be listening to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. No doubt his approach to these matters, supervised by the Institute of Economic Affairs, would lead to the abolition altogether

273
of regional aid. I do not think that we can indulge in the economics of the laboratory. I remember a recent occasion at a meeting in a remote part of Devon where the chairman and his wife were the only members of his form at grammar school who remained in the locality. Everyone else had gone. Cumulative denuding of the human and physical wealth of our remoter regions will increase the problem of the member states and of the Community. ERDF is a small, perhaps even token advance towards rectifying these natural defects. By whatever proportion the fund is increased in size, we stand to benefit disproportionately. It is a national to increase the size of the regional fund and it is in the interests of everyone who believes in the Community to welcome its existence and further development. With those words, I thank once again Sub-committee A and the introducer of this debate for giving us the opportunity of looking again at these matters.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having introduced this Motion and to Lord Plowden's committee who produced the report which is the subject. It seems to me that Lord Tordoff's Motion offers a useful and timely opportunity to debate the relationship between our national regional policy and the Community's regional policy, embryonic though that may be. On the national side, we heard only the day before yesterday of the Government's proposals for completing their reduction of the population covered by assisted-area status from 40 per cent. to 26 per cent. or 27 per cent. It is clear that if resources are scarce they should be targeted where the need is greatest. However, this begs a number of questions.
The first is whether it is right that a nation's regional policy should command only one-quarter of 1 per cent. of GDP. A nation is, after all, the sum of its regions and so we are not talking about some form of fringe activity. There is also the question of the notorious blackspots, already mentioned, some of which are situated in areas which do not attract support as they are not justified by their aggregate characteristics taken as a whole. This leads one into the question of criteria for designation. The rate of long-term unemployment should be a very important indicator, but there are others; and the Committee had some pertinent remarks on the choice of eligible areas in paragraphs 17 to 19 where they point out that using Level 2 regions as a basis, in some cases there are greater disparities within than between regions and we must try to achieve greater flexibility.
It will come as no surprise that we on this Bench attach great importance to these matters. This stems naturally from our commitment to the decentralisation of Government. But there is another very important consideration which is that the success of any advanced and innovative industrial strategy depends crucially on the co-operation and acceptance of sacrifice by those regions in structural decline where the brunt of the unemployment and its attendant miseries is borne. If serious attention is not paid to their needs for help and rehabilitation, there is no hope whatever of securing general consent to the slimmer line of modern competitive industries. The noble Lord, Lord O' Hagan,
274
referred to the Social conscience of the Community. I think he saw the ERDF as embodying that social conscience.
I turn now to the European dimension. Well presented and lucid though the 12th Report of this Session is, the 14th Report of last Session still seems to me to remain the essential background reading. It makes the point very early on that the ERDF is not the executive arm of a Community regional policy based on common Community criteria but simply provides funds from the Community budget which contribute towards the separate regional policies of member states. One wonders if this is really a sufficient role for the fund in a Community whose regional disparities of income still run from 35.1 per cent. to 231.6 per cent. of the average per capita GDP of the EEC—an enormous range.
Indeed, this point is given some prominence by the CBI in the paper they submitted to the sub-committee which is printed along with the 12th Report. They see a big reduction in these discrepancies as an essential precondition of proceeding towards monetary union and other desirable things. It is interesting to note in passing that they do not seem opposed to the aim of a federated Europe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, proudly proclaimed his commitment.
The 14th Report of last Session stressed the total control by central Government of ERDF receipts. The local authority applications are processed by the appropriate regional offices of the departments. Payments from the ER DF are made direct to the Department of Industry in the case of industrial projects and to the Department of the Environment for infrastructure projects. The vexed question of additionality here raises its head and it was one of the themes of the 14th Report that there was little or no evidence of additionality in the whole operation. In fact the sub-committee said in paragraph 38 of that report:
"the system is merely a book-keeping exercise on the part of central Government".
While preparing that report, the sub-committee heard views that there was not enough direct contact with Community institutions for applicants, that there were too many intermediate bodies; several local authorities were not content with the way Government departments handled their applications and appealed for more direct access to Brussels. The committee itself appeared to view sympathetically the suggestion that regional agencies, such as the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, the Highland and Islands Board, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Northern Ireland Development Board, should play a greater role in the selection and administration of projects. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who I think added one or two more organisations. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government can say that they share this view.
In their current report the sub-committee summarise the main recommendations of the 14th Report and remark that there is a substantial measure of agreement between these and the Commission's recommendations for revision. That is gratifying, but it is not going to be much help if the Government will not play ball, too.

275
One of the main new proposals is the shift from project to programme aid, which is I think in accordance with the sub-committee's earlier recommendations. This brings one up against the apparent unsatisfactoriness of the regional development programmes so far presented in Brussels. This may in part be due—in fact, I imagine it almost certainly is—to our lack of a decentralised administrative structure such as they have in Germany or Italy, but it would be a great pity if we were to lose out on this account. So my next question to the Government is: what have they in mind for improving this situation? Will they let regional groupings of local authorities take more of a part in shaping such programmes in line with the suggestions put forward by the North West Industrial Development Association in their submission which is printed along with this report?
Another important proposal is the increase to 20 per cent. of the non-quota section of the fund. This is seen by one witness as,
"a significant step in favour of the additionality principle".
Do the Government agree with that assessment and will they support such a change? If so, I wonder whether they agree with the Commission's idea that proposals for non-quota aid should not require un-animous agreement in the Council of Ministers but should be subject instead to decision in the fund management committee. The sub-committee suggest in Section 22 that this would reduce delays in distributing non-quota resources and relieve the Council of Ministers from the type of decision to which they are not well suited. It will be interesting to hear the Government's view on that.
On the issue of direct contact between local authorities and Brussels, a number of local authorities raised the question of the outdated data base used by the Commission for assessment of eligibility. West Yorkshire made a particular point of this, holding that they have been penalised by the use of 1977 data, whereas on 1981 data they would have qualified for ERDF aid. Does the Government agree with the North West Industrial Development Association—who wrote a very sensible paper—that it would be helpful if regional and local authorities could submit directly to the Commission regular and frequent information on the economic situation in their areas? This, of course, would not require the stream of visits against which the noble Lord, Lord O' Hagan, warned.
Merseyside, in their submission, raised the important question which has already been touched upon of visibility or transparency—whichever your Lordships prefer—of ERDF aid. They say:
"The EEC should be able to obtain full credit for the amount of resource being realised in the region—a current problem because much of the present EEC aid goes into Treasury coffers in support of Government programmes, like MSC and regional develcpment grants, which are recognised locally as solely United Kingdom Government initiatives".
I think they have a very significant point here, and it behoves the Government to decide what their attitude to the Community really is. The Government are, on the face of it, pro-European up to a point. They do not want to withdraw like the Labour Party. That being so, surely the Government will want to be helpful in correcting unfounded anti-Community feeling in the country, and what better way could they
276
choose than to pursue additionality with a little more resolution and give credit where credit is due?
In the end, this is all a question of attitude and approach. In their thoughtful Part III, entitled "A Community regional policy: the long-term prospect", the sub-committee say:
"The Commission has put forward proposals … which deserve support in principle and close attention to detail. A marked shift away from the strait-jacket of an ERDF only providing support for the national regional policies of member states can be detected in many of the new clauses of the proposed regulation. A genuine Community regional policy could be constructed alongside support for national policies by means of programme contracts and the non-quota section".
The Committee add a note of caution on the question of resources and the ultimate dependence of a stronger Community regional policy on resolution of the budget problem. That is fair enough; but we should have a much better case for the shift of resources from the CAP and other things if we could be seen to be using ERDF existing resources properly, which it appears to me we are not.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said he hoped he would not be regarded as presumptuous for opening this debate. Far from being so regarded, I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful to him for having done so. We already have had clarification of some of the problems, particularly local problems, from the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, Lord O' Hagan and Lord Kilmarnock. I must confess, as will be obvious from our report, that my committee felt that virtually everything that could usefully be said about regional policy in the short term had been dealt with in our debate last year. Already this debate will have shown that more has been added to it. That is my view.
In opening the debate last year, I said that the purpose of regional policy was to help the poorer areas of the country to come nearer to the general level of prosperity and, in the words of the Community, to correct the principal regional imbalances within the community—a policy of convergence. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, said that in 1971 the richer regions on an income per head basis were 61/2 times more prosperous than the poorest regions. In 1981 the sub-committee, taking evidence, were told by the CBI that there had been no change. Indeed, therefore, in 10 years there had been no progress in improving the difference between different regions within the Community.
According to the Giolitti Report, which was published by Commission last year, in an enlarged Community of 12 countries, the richest region, which I understand is likely to be Hamburg, would be 15 times more prosperous in terms of income per head than the poorest regions of Portugal.
In considering ERDF spending, we must put it in perspective to total Community spending. ERDF spending is something less than 3 per cent. of total Community spending, while the CAP is about 70 per cent. A major transfer from the CAP to the ERDF in the near future must be regarded as politically extremely remote. A major increase in ERDF funds from new sources is improbable. We must work for a better

277
distribution and a better use of whatever funds are available.
In the Select Committee's 14th Report we made a number of recommendations of which perhaps the most important was to concentrate funds on those countries whose per capita income was below the average of the Community, to be assessed on some agreed economic indicators. We suggested more concentration on development programmes and also on the so-called "integrated programmes" which are being tried out in Naples and Belfast at the present time.
The Commission's proposals suggest, among other things, that the quota section should be confined to Greece, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom and the overseas departements of France and that the non-quota section, which is now 5 per cent. of the whole, should be allocated 20 per cent. and devoted to helping any part of the Community adversely affected by serious recent industrial decline or by problems arising from the operation of other Community priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that the Government should press strongly for the allocation of 20 per cent. to be done as quickly as possible. I hope it will not be regarded as unduly cynical if I say that if that were to be done without adequate preparation it might result in less funds in total coming to this country than if it were done in, I will not say a more leisurely way, but in a more considered way.
The Commission proposed that programme contracts—that is, the financing of programmes, in contrast to the financing of individual projects—should be the main vehicle for transferring aid to the regions. There are problems here. It is suggested they should be three-year contracts. How binding would that be, when the budgeting is done on an annual basis? Nevertheless, this is a positive recommendation. They recommended the development of integrated operations, such as Naples and Belfast.
We must recognise that there are real administrative difficulties the Government in preparing programme contracts. Unlike Germany and some other countries in the Community, there is in this country no developed form of regional authority and each government department deals directly with local authorities. It is a vertical organisation rather than a horizontal one. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that other institutions such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and so on, should be brought into assist. That is a positive suggestion that I would urge the Government to consider. Other noble Lords who have spoken about local authority problems mentioned the question of "black spots". This is a real problem but it is something that we ought to deal with: it is not one for the Community. Even given the difficulties of the Government in dealing with programmes of this kind, the committee felt, nonetheless, that the Government should prepare for the change now.
Lastly, I would mention the question of additionality, which other noble Lords have mentioned. The Government claim that ERDF funds would permit more to be done than would otherwise be done. But can this really be true? Perhaps, as a former Treasury official, it would be unfair of me to suggest that if people believe that they will believe anything. But national industrial aid in the regions under the
278
various industry Acts is virtually open-ended; and on infrastructure the Department of the Environment guidelines say:
"It is not the Government's intention that the availability of assistance from the fund should enable local authorities to undertake additional projects".
In practice, what happens is that a local authority which has been allocated a grant for a project from the ERDF will find that its loan sanction approved by the central Government has been reduced accordingly. Real additionality in this area would produce more money for local authorities to devote to improving communications, industrial sites, drainage schemes and sewerage systems and so on—all improvements which noble Lords will know are urgently needed. I do accept that, although no one has produced any figures, nevertheless there must be some additionality and not purely a book transfer.
If aid from the ERDF is to be limited to some countries, as is proposed by the Commission—and I have just referred to that—then those countries which are giving the money and not receiving are, I believe, bound to insist on additionality. They are bound to insist that their money goes to help to solve regional problems which would otherwise not be solved, rather than to help to solve the budgetary problems of the countries which are receiving the aid.
Finally, it would be arrogant to believe that the Commission had followed the advice given in the Select Committee's 14th Report; nevertheless, it is gratifying that so many of the Select Committee's suggestions are included in one way or another in the proposals of this most constructive and positive report of the Commission. I want to bring that out, because we tend very often to be highly critical of the Commission, and here is a case where they have, in my view, attempted to make positive suggestions. I believe that their proposals, if adopted, will lead to a quite definite improvement in the operation of the ERDF and should be welcomed; but we must recognise that they will make only a marginal contribution to Britain's Community budgetary problems and they are no substitute for reform of the CAP.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his committee for this most valuable report that we are discussing this evening. It contains an informative and helpful summary of the proposals of the Commission and some very clear conclusions about them. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Tordoff for the way in which he introduced this report to us earlier this evening. We have had three reports now from the Select Committee on the regional fund. We debated them in 1977, last year, in 1981, and now we have this third report this evening. As I say, there are in this particular report some very clear conclusions and it is to those conclusions I should like to give general support, as did my noble friend Lord Tordoff.
In all three reports the committee have been concerned with five main problems: the size of the fund; the vexed question of additionality; the method of allocation; the problem of access to the Community and participation in decisions for regional and local authorities; and the need for a comprehensive and

279
significant overall regional policy. None of these problems is yet solved, of course,but it is veryencouraging, as the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Plowden, said, that the developments suggested by the committee in its report last year, which will undoubtedly contribute to a solution, have in large measure been adopted by the Commission.
I should like briefly to consider the Commission's proposals for the revised regulation in the context of the five problems which I have mentioned. First, on the size of the fund, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, in a debate last year, told us that the European Regional Development Fund accounted for 3 per cent. only of Community spending, and he said it was so small that it could hardly scratch the surface of the problem. In his concluding remarks this evening, he has again warned us that that is the case. In the latest report, the committee say, with regret, that there is little chance of more funds being available, but I am glad that the committee support the demand of the Commission and of the European Parliament for greater resources. The committee point out that since 1975 the situation of the poorer regions in the Community has not improved, but has, in relative terms, deteriorated. An increased regional fund is necessary to help deal with that deterioration.
I repeat my belief that the problem of the British budget contribution will not be permanently solved until the Community budget, which is now only 1 per cent. of the GDP of the Community, is increased through the development of common policies, from which Britain will get more advantage than we do from the common agricultural policy, and in such an increase the Regional Development Fund would clearly play an important part. But if, for the moment, that is not to be, then the Commission's proposals for greater geographical concentration have added importance. But greater concentration will not help, if the funds disbursed do not lead to additional economic activity.
That brings me to the subject which has been much discussed both last year and in our debate this evening—the question of additionality. In our last debate, we discussed how meaningless to the firm's concerned selection of their project for Community aid was, and we saw that, so far as local authorities were concerned, while the saving in interest and principal repayment was welcomed, no additional development resulted from Community aid. Community aid was not much more than a method of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement or relieving the ratepayers. The Government say that they take into account, in fixing the amount of money which they intend to spend on their regional policy, the amount that they anticipate they will get from the Community and that, therefore, they do spend more. But there can be no proof of this, or, at any rate, no assessment of the actual amount more which they are spending, as was underlined by noble friend Lord Tordoff and by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, although the latter felt that there was some additionality.
The Commission are seeking to implement the principle of additionality by increasing the non-quota section, over which they have more control, by moving from financing of individual projects to financing
280
programmes and by writing into the regulation conditions requiring additionality before programmes are approved. I hope that they will be successful by these means in increasing the degree of additionality, because, as the committee say, without additionality the credibility of the Community's regional policy cannot be maintained. I look forward to hearing the answers which are given to the questions put on this subject, to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate, by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Then there is the method of allocation. I think that there is widespread approval of greater geographical concentration, but there is some argument as to whether the Commission should select countries or regions. In the proposals which they put forward, they choose regions. In our last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester, suggested that countries should be chosen and that countries should be responsible for all that goes on within their boundaries. That was also the view of some who gave evidence to the committee, when preparing the current report, and it seems to be the view of the Department of Industry. But I do not see the Regional Development Fund as an equalisation fund as between nations. That would be a national assistance fund, rather than a regional development fund.
The importance of the emergence of the regions, as a counter-balance to an inevitable degree of centralisation in Brussels, cannot be over-emphasised. And, of course, it is interesting, as many noble Lords have said, that many people, in giving evidence to the committee, have said how difficult it is to produce regional development programmes in the United Kingdom, because we have no system of regional government—a point mentioned by many noble Lords, but also by my noble friend Lord Tordoff in his opening remarks. I was interested and glad to see that in their report the committee say that the Government must organise themselves, somehow, so that they are in a position to produce the regional development programmes which are required.
Coming back to the choice between countries or regions, it is much more difficult to select countries. If we have criteria for regions, some countries are automatically, for the time being, eliminated, and eliminated with less difficulty than if the choice was being made between countries, since these countries know that, if one of their regions should fall within the criteria, it will qualify. It has been pointed out—and there has been some discussion in the debate—that certain areas in the United Kingdom, such as Yorkshire, Humberside and the South-West, are eliminated by the application of the criteria which have been put forward by the Commission. But the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out that if you have 11 regions in the United Kingdom, as opposed to 33 in West Germany, this is likely to happen. I agree with the committee that there is a case for a sub-division, so far as the application of these criteria is concerned.
So far as the black spots outside the regions to be assisted are concerned, I think that these should be dealt with by the non-quota section of the fund, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, suggested, and by Governments themselves, as they committee insists. After all, the fund should be an addition to national policies,

281
and while funds are limited national policies have to play a major role. Then there is the question of access for regional bodies. I fully appreciate that, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, there would be great difficulty for the Commission in dealing with 715 local authorities. But I think that they could deal with regional authorities or the various regional development agencies in this country, which were listed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I am glad that in the new proposals of the Commission there will be greater involvment of local authorities, particularly in the preparation of programme contracts, and I hope that this development will be encouraged, in practice, by the British Government.
Finally, there is the question of building up a comprehensive regional policy. In the last debate which we had, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said that the regional fund has no policy of its own. But, in my view, if the Commission's proposals are adopted, it will have one. That regional policy will derive from the implementation of the principle of geographical concentration, the application of the criteria for selection and the increase in the non-quota section. The Commission suggest from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. which I would welcome, as did my noble friend Lord Tordoff. But how far are the funds to be derived from the regional development fund co-ordinated with the funds from other sources in the Community—from the European Investment Bank, the Social Fund, the Farm Fund, the new Community instrument and the Coal and Steel Funds? We know of experiments in integrated operations in Naples and Belfast. I am glad that the Commission propose that these experiments in integrated operations should be extended, and T support, as the committee do, the principle of the 10 per cent. premium.
Finally, in our last debate we welcomed the appointment of one commissioner to deal with both the Regional and the Social Funds, but in this debate I think we must say that there is a need for still closer co-ordination. The impact of all Community policies on each region needs to be continuously monitored, the cohesion of these policies needs to be continually assessed and their common purpose needs to be determined. Such adjustments as the attainment of that purpose may require from time to time need to be made. It is a continuous process of co-ordinating all the different activities in this field of aid and assistance to the regions of the Community which needs to be implemented.
7.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it is particularly appropriate that your Lordships should choose to debate this subject this evening, at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We are passing through an important period in the development of the Community, and decisions which are taken in the near future, in the context of the progress which has been made so far and in the middle of a period of enlargement, will help to shape the future of the Community for very many years to come. I have listened with great interest to what has been said this evening. Perhaps
282
I may now take this opportunity to put the Government's view.
The four documents listed in the Motion before us this evening are closely linked. Although I shall have some specific points to make regarding the latest Commission proposal, they can all be considered as contributing towards the history of the European Regional Development Fund. Not for the first time your Lordships owe a considerable debt to the European Communities Committee and to its sub-committees, in particular Sub-Committee A under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. I recall that my maiden speech in your Lordships' House, nigh on 20 years ago, was made on a Motion moved by the noble Lord.
The original fund was set up in 1975 with the stated aim of reducing imbalances between the various regions of the Community. It began in a very modest way with a budget of some ₣125 million allocated in national quotas to the member states and has grown, rather faster than the Community budget as a whole, to some ₣850 million in 1981. The United Kingdom has always been a net beneficiary of the fund. A major change which took place in the operation of the fund during that period was the provision in 1979 for a small part of the fund to be used in a "non-quota" manner and to be applied to counter the effect of certain Community policies. A further amendment was made to the fund in 1980 to provide a national quota for Greece upon her accession to the Community. The Commission have produced a series of annual reports on the operation of the fund, and it is the sixth of these factual accounts about the fund's operation which is referred to in the Motion.
In January 1981 the Commission produced the first of a planned series of periodic reports on social and economic trends in the Community's regions. These are intended to provide a more wide-ranging view of the fund's operations than the factual annual reports and are bound to be used to provide pointers to ways in which the operation of the fund might be improved in an attempt to achieve its stated aims. The first periodic report revealed that despite considerable economic growth in the Community, regional inequalities in growth, income and employment have widened. The report identified two kinds of regional problem: those resulting from structural under-development and those resulting from sectoral decline or Community policies. The report also noted a general increase in unemployment. In July 1981 the Commission produced their new regional policy guidelines which took these findings into account, and later in 1981 produced their proposals for a new fund regulation based on those guidelines. Perhaps I could now discuss the main points of the proposed regulation in a little detail, because it is the principal matter which has exercised your Lordships this evening.
First, the Commission have commented many times in their regional policy guidelines and in the preface to their new proposed regulation that regional imbalances have been growing, rather than diminishing, since the Community embarked upon a regional policy. That was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. It is sad but true. They conclude from it that the time has come to redefine and strengthen the Community's regional policy instruments, and they

283
have so proposed. I want to make it clear that the Government in general endorse that view and welcome the proposals. I could not say that we believe that the Commission got everything right in their initial proposals, but we do believe their objectives to be very much along the right lines. Our doubts are much more to do with details—such as, for example, the potential staffing burden.
First and foremost, we believe strongly that the fund should be more concentrated, and that means concentrated on the less prosperous member states. The proposals, as they stand, would result in the United Kingdom's remaining a net beneficiary from the fund. We, of course, welcome that. Where we have serious reservations in this respect is that the Commission propose to exclude some of our assisted areas—the South West, Yorkshire and Humberside and Corby—from eligibility for the quota section of the fund. Much of the data which the Commission used in constructing their index of eligible regions is inevitably now out of date. Nor is it strictly comparable across the Community.
We have made it clear in Brussels that we are not prepared to accept the proposed exclusions. In our view, once it has been established that member states should qualify for aid from the fund, it is up to those member states to determine which of their regions should be eligible. The United Kingdom regions upon which the Commission's analysis was based are much larger than the Community average. This means that the problems of smaller, but still sizeable and important, areas within them are obscured. We believe it to be fundamental that, at a time when the United Kingdom is concentrating its domestic aid on fewer assisted areas, all those areas should similarly be eligible for aid from the fund. We have also made it clear that the United Kingdom's regional problems, which are essentially those of industrial decline and which are fully represented in the regions I have mentioned, must be given full weight in the distribution of the fund's resources.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, if my noble friend has no more to say on the nature of the statistics as opposed to the area which they cover, may I ask him whether I am to understand that his argument rests solely on the view that Her Majesty's Government should retain control within the United Kingdom as to which regions are to be given aid? Does my noble friend consider the statistics method for assessing regional deprivation is good and that we need to retain the right to choose?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, later in my speech I was going to say more about the statistics point. Perhaps I could make further reference to it now, since my noble friend has intervened. Our view is that the proposals for determining these areas of eligibility and the nature of the statistics used are not particularly satisfactory. We have considerable doubts, for example, about calculating regional GDPs. Frankly, national GDPs are difficult enough to calculate accurately. If you try to calculate regional GDPs, it is even more difficult, particularly so if one wants the figures to be as up to date as possible. Certainly we accept some of the criticisms which have been made about figures
284
being used which are rather out of date and that is why we have taken the view that we have. We believe that the national authorities themselves are really better qualified to check on the areas within their countries which ought to be eligible for assistance from this fund.
The Commission have also emphasised, in the proposals, the need to co-ordinate community and national regional aids, as already required by the Council resolution of 6th February 1979. It obviously does not make sense for the efforts of less prosperous member states, and of the fund itself, to be frustrated by excessive support for regions in other member states which already enjoy a higher level of prosperity. How far the Commission itself should assume a role in relation to, for example, the planning of national infrastructure programmes is however a rather different question. On this we shall be urging a more cautious approach, confined to cases of genuine Community interest.
On the question of expanding the non-quota section of the fund from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent., we share the doubts expressed about the wisdom of such a large increase in an instrument which is as yet largely untried. Our experience so far with the non-quota section is that the programmes required by the Commission to support applications for aid are extremely difficult to prepare and the amount of aid received inevitably small when set against the scale of the problems with which the non-quota section attempts to deal. We would favour, therefore, a more modest growth, although we shall of course be alert to the needs of specific declining United Kingdom industries in urging the Commission to put forward new non-quota measures.
The difficulties we have found so far in preparing programmes which meet the Commission's requirements are one of the reasons why we have reservations about the proposed change to financing by programmes rather than by projects. Again, the object is an eminently sensible one but it is a question of devising a simple and practical procedure to make the change worthwhile. The present system works efficiently and we do not wish to give it up until it has been shown that the new system will really simplify administration, not just in Brussels but in member states too. That is why we and some other member states want to preserve a choice of method throughout the life of the new regulation.
We have somewhat similar reservations about the increasing weight being placed on the compilation of regional development programmes, to a common detailed pattern. We fully accept the need for the Commission, and other member states, to see United Kingdom proposals in their context. But our structure of government is not one which allows us to fit easily into the mould of programme prepared by those member states which have a regional system of government. We shall continue therefore to urge for some flexibility in this regard.
The Commission's proposals lay stress on the need to associate local authorities closely in the working of the fund. Bearing in mind the high proportion of resources devoted to infrastructure projects this is clearly right, though we must remember that the legal relationship is between the commission and

285
the member state on which ultimate responsibility continues to lie. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment keeps the local authority associations in touch with the progress of the negotiations. I know he appreciates local authorities' co-operation, in the production of the regional development programmes for example, and we recognise the importance individual local authorities attach to the aid they receive from the fund.
It is clearly in everybody's interest—the Government's, local authorities, and the Commission's—that the United Kingdom should continue to use its quota allocation to the full. In the past we have had many more projects, especially in the infrastructure field, put to us than we have been able to submit to Brussels. We have concentrated on submitting projects falling fairly and squarely within the criteria and which generate early payments from the fund. In the future, however, given the change in the coverage of United Kingdom assisted areas, this may not be the case. It is clear that, whatever criteria are finally laid down in the regulation, the Commission and other member states will continue to examine projects critically to ensure that they meet them. We ourselves shall therefore endeavour to ensure both that there is a proper measure of flexibility in the application of those criteria and that we exploit the range of eligible projects to the full.
The Commission's proposals include much more specific references to additionality than does the existing fund regulation. The United Kingdom's position has been made quite clear. We already take receipts from the fund into account when determining the level of expenditure in our regions. Without Community receipts our expenditure would certainly be lower so there is clearly additionality in that sense. There are severe and practical difficulties however in trying to demonstrate additionality at the level of the individual project, difficulties which have been made clear during the negotiations on the new regulations. Projects and programmes alike can take several years to complete and expenditure must be planned ahead. If, for understandable reasons, the fund cannot guarantee its assistance ahead, it is difficult for the member state to commit itself an additionality when its overall receipts from the fund may vary considerably from year to year. We understand that the Commission is giving further thought to this thorny topic. We can appreciate their desire to maximise, and highlight, the real contribution the community is making in the regional field. I hope a practical way can be found of doing so which still makes sense in everyday administration.
Perhaps I should add that all the monies provided by the fund are provided on a grant basis, whereas money which local authorities, for example, might otherwise use for their projects is generally raised on a loan basis. So that where the money is provided by the fund as an alternative to loan finance, the interest charges—which can be very substantial on a large project—do not have to be met. In that sense too there is an element of additionality.
I am conscious that in a short debate such as this it has not been possible to deal in depth with every subject that has been raised. However, perhaps I may now turn to some which have been and see if
286
can deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, inquired in his opening speech about the Government's attitude to the proposed exclusion of some assisted areas. I referred to that in my own remarks just now. I shall say again—actually, it is rather an important point and so does bear repetition—that we have made it clear during the negotiations that the United Kingdom cannot accept the proposed exclusions. Indeed, we understand that the Commission is about to announce some revisions of this part of the proposals, which we hope will go a long way to meeting the points we have made.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me about the eligibility of mid-Wales. We discussed this matter when I repeated the Statement the other day. Under present regulations and current proposals, only United Kingdom assisted areas would qualify for quota section aid. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales' new plans for aiding mid-Wales are currently being discussed with the Commission to determine eligibility for non-quota aid and we certainly expect to reach agreement on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and at least one other noble Lord drew attention to the need for more and better statistics. This was certainly in the mind of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, as well. We are currently investigating the possibility of providing more detailed statistics to help the case particularly of the smaller areas—the "black spots", as I believe my noble friend described them. This involves a number of Government departments and will not, I fear, be a quick and easy matter. But, as I said earlier, we are certainly not happy with the present basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked me about the possibility of increased receipts from the new quota. The change from the present quota to the proposed one would give to the United Kingdom, we calculate, an extra ₣8 million in 1982 and a further ₣8 million or ₣10 million in 1983.
My noble friend Lord O'Hagan asked me specifically about the position of Devon and Cornwall, which he represents with such distinction in the European Parliament. The suggestion is that new small areas, for example, a Devon and Cornwall unit, should be set up as the present regions like the South-West are rather too large, and, as my noble friend pointed out, tend to disguise the existence of black spots. The difficulty of this approach is that comparable Community-wide statistics for such small areas do not exist. However, as I have said, we are looking at the whole question of statistics in the hope that we can get over this difficulty.
My noble friend may be interested to know that in the last three years, 1979 to 1981, the Devon and Cornwall area received something like ₣16 million from the fund. My noble friend also asked me about tourism, which doubtless is a matter of particular interest to that part of the world. I understand that the new proposals include a specific reference to aid for tourism in Article 16, which I hope will reassure my noble friend.
Again my noble friend and one or two other noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised this point—asked about direct access to the European Community for local authorities. I touched on that question earlier, but perhaps I could add to

287
what I said in this way. I understand that local authorities frequently send deputations to Brussels. Ultimately, the regulation is a document negotiated between the Council and member states; that is to say, the national authorities of the state concerned and not the regional authorities. But my noble friend was right to point out the modest resources, in some respects, of the Commission in this regard, and clearly a long stream of deputations from every local authority in the Community would be a considerable burden upon the Commission's resources. I think the present arrangements, which I know generate some frustration among local authorities, are perhaps the best we can devise for the present.
In case there are any points that I have failed to deal with, I will study Hansard with care and endeavour to write to noble Lords with some answers.
In conclusion, let me attempt to sum up the present position. We remain firmly in support of the growth and development of the Regional Fund, both as an instrument of Community solidarity and as a method of recognising the United Kingdom's particular problems. I have set out some of our reservations on the Commission's initial proposals, but we are in a constantly evolving situation. What I have been describing is a proposal which has been made by the Commission to the Council and which is currently being discussed by officials in a Council working group. When the group has finished its discussions—and I must say that at present it is not possible to say precisely when that will be—the amended proposals will be submitted to the Foreign Affairs Council. Until then all the provisions of the existing regulation will be maintained. Further enlargement of the Community will in itself require further changes.
In the meantime, other member states have made many of the points which have been made here, and have expressed other reservations also. The negotiations on the new regulations are complex, and clearly there will, as in other Community negotiations, have to be some give and take on all sides if we are to make progress. But I have indicated the objective we shall be pursuing on behalf of the United Kingdom and some of the particular points we regard as fundamental. I hope it will not be too long before we shall be able to report further progress. In the meantime, I am very happy to have had this opportunity to put the Government's views before your Lordships.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that speech. When he was dealing with questions that had been put to him, I felt he was perhaps a little more forthcoming than his basic brief allowed him to be, and I am grateful to him for that. There was a slight tendency, one felt, for the departmental straight bat to show through in his brief. I could see that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was a little depressed at the answer he received.
I think we have had a good debate. Originally this Motion was to be debated in the dinner hour on Monday. I am rather glad that we have had the extra time, because I think the contributions have been varied and extensive. I am most grateful to those who have joined in. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Plowden,
288
for his kind words and his indulgence in regard to my putting down this Motion.
I think one glimmer has come through, which is that, the Government having stated their position quite clearly on the regions in Yorkshire and Humberside and Devon and Cornwall, that gives some hope that the Commission has seen the light and is about to come forward with something that might hold out some promise; and we wait with interest for that. Meanwhile, I thank your Lordships again for your contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Science Research Council: Rothschild Report
7.36 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in respect of Lord Rothschild's Report on the Social Science Research Council.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question which appears in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords who have put their names down to take part in this discussion, and in particular the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government, since I fully realise that his response will have to be a tentative one. We understand, indeed it has been officially stated, that consultations between the Secretary of State and various bodies are still continuing, and we would not expect the Government's conclusions until they were complete. On the other hand, this House does not appear to have been one of the bodies to be collectively consulted, and perhaps this evening's debate might be regarded as a substitute.
I wonder indeed if the noble Lord will be able to tell us what he thinks of The Times Higher Educational Supplement headline of 28th May last, "Report riles Joseph", and whether the Secretary of State is, as that newspaper informed us, very annoyed about the report. I do not know the views of the Secretary of State. I think myself that the report, which is a remarkable document to have been completed in so short a time, has done a good deal to establish at least two points: first, that while the social sciences are a particularly difficult and sensitive area of research because of their political and social connotations, they nevertheless deserve a measure of public support, for the same reason as public support is sought for the natural sciences or for the humanities; that is to say, because there are certain forms of addition to our knowledge, to our treasures of information, which it is right for the state to support.
The second point, I think made in the Report, is that, while far from perfect, the Social Science Research Council is probably, or could be if reformed, as good a single instrument for supporting such research as it is likely one could devise; and the only alternative, which is not fully considered in the report, would be wider dissemination of public money to universities, to learned societies in the field, and so forth.
Furthermore, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has shown himself sensitive of the great dangers which are particular to the social sciences—

289
that insufficiently rigorous standards will be applied where the support given by the council may determine the whole direction of research in particular areas of study. Because social science research is partly collective research, because it partly demands institutions or teams rather than individual scholarship, the selection of such teams or places of study may give a particular cast to the bulk of published research in a particular field. This of course has made it difficult to say whether or not the policies followed have been wise, because one cannot do that without picking out particular areas of study, and none of us would claim a comparable range to that which the council itself possesses.
The point that was perhaps missed by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, was the extent to which the Social Science Research Council began under the impulse of its original chairman, Lord Young, to diffuse, as a matter of policy, support for the social sciences and attention to opinions on the social sciences in a very wide range of universities. It was, as it were, a specifically democratic rather than elitist form of sponsorship, different from what is done by academies and that, I believe, in any science—social or natural—is a very dubious policy. Certainly the treatment of the Rothschild Report and of the evidence submitted to it in The Times Higher Education Supplement and elsewhere, suggests extreme sensitivity to criticism, sensitivity which I think your Lordships may wish to ignore in order that light may be cast.
I should like to ask—in so far as the noble Lord can reply for the Government at this stage—what are the likely comments of the Government on certain particular recommendations. Do the Government, for instance, consider that the changes in the internal organisation of the council which had, in fact, begun under its present chairman, before the report, will be sufficient to give greater assurance to the scholarly community of the intellectual calibre of those who actually make the decisions? What is the Government's view about the desirability—on which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, places great emphasis—of improved links with industry and commerce? What is the Government's view of the noble Lord's suggestion that the giving of grants would be fortified if there were greater consultation with recognised experts in the field on the part of the permanent staff? Finally, what would the Government's view be—this is a matter on which I have no particular view myself—of the contention by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, that the Social Science Research Council and those groups, organisations and individuals whom it backs, are lacking in powers of presentation so that some of the work done, though valuable itself, does not play a part in forming policy or opinion which is desirable?
I should like to deal in some detail with one matter upon which the Government needs not give an opinion because the council has already taken steps in response to the report, and that is the question of the research carried on in industrial relations at the University of Warwick. There is to be a very distinguished inquiry headed by Sir Kenneth Berrill into the claim which I put forward in my evidence that that research had, on the whole, suffered from bias towards an exclusively trade union point of view. I dwell on it not—as The Times Higher Education Supplement
290
appears to think—because I have any personal axe to grind, but because I think that one of the fields (not the only field) where the whole difficulty of publicly sponsored, publicly paid for, research is made most evident is in the social sciences.
Let me take your Lordships back to a notable document—or at least notable in its time but it seems to have been largely forgotten now—namely, the Bullock Report on Industrial Democracy. Noble Lords will remember that that was a rather remarkable report because its terms of reference began with the words:
"Accepting the need for a radical extension of industrial democracy in the control of companies by means of representation on boards of directors, and accepting the essential role of trade union organisations in this process, to consider how such an extension can best be achieved".
It is perhaps not exactly the same as the Science Research Council sponsoring a project which began by assuming that the moon is made of green cheese. Nevertheless, it does introduce, as it were, the findings of an inquiry into the terms of reference and it was the view of some people that this was an inappropriate form of inquiry for academic participation. I would also remind your Lordships that the three members of that inquiry, who were themselves industrialists of experience, pointed out in their minority report:
"Whilst the signatories to the Majority Report have not argued their case on the basis of the TUC 'control' proposition, it is clear to us that in many circles control by, and the exercise of much increased power by, the Trade Unions is regarded as a main objective".
The relation of this to the University of Warwick is that of the two academics on this committee one was the then director of the SSRC Industrial Relations Unit, and the committee expressed their appreciation of the importance of the work done on their behalf by two groups of researchers again at the University of Warwick and at the same unit. So we have a committee in which one of the academic members, who incidentally on all contentious issues voted with the trade union members and against the industrialists, was also commissioning work from his own unit to support the work of the inquiry.
I would not for a moment say that this is an inappropriate way in which to approach industrial relations. It is perfectly proper that a unit should explore industrial relations from the point of view of the trade union movement. The question is whether it is appropriate for such research to be funded out of the public purse. If the Trades Union Congress wished to investigate the possibilities of greater trade union control of industry, why should they not fund the research themselves?
There is, of course, other evidence which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, himself quotes and which certainly did not come from me. Perhaps of equal interest is the fact that, in its quite long history now, the unit has never examined what many people would think—and in the light of our experience at the moment would certainly think—is one of the most important aspects of British industrial relations—namely, the extent to which, let us say, in the railway industry or the newspaper press there has been a sustained resistance by trade unions to the adoption of more modern methods; that is to say, that surely in 15 years

291
there might have been some attention to a matter as fundamental as this.
Again, since the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, produced his book on the closed shop 20 years ago, a great deal has happened in that respect in legislation and in practice in this country and in others, but it has been left to someone from another university—privately financed, or financed in part by his own university—to write a sequel to Lord McCarthy's book. There was—and it shows how difficult the whole of this subject is—a very curious defence made of the unit by the director of the Leverhulme Trust in the columns of The Times Higher Education Supplement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, himself made a fairly convincing reply. It was assumed that because the Leverhulme Trust had given money this was, as it were, a certificate of lack of bias in the institution. With all apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who I am delighted will follow me, for those of us who know the world of foundations there are a great many examples where money, which has been accumulated through the exercise of capitalist enterprise has been put for distribution in the hands of Left-inclined intellectuals and used to support projects, units and policies which the donors of that money would perhaps themselves never have thought suitable.
Of course, industrial relations is by no means the only difficult area for the Social Science Research Council. As I indicated very briefly in my evidence, there is the even more difficult and contentious area of race relations, which one can approach in a variety of ways. My view would be—and I maintain it—that one of the least profitable ways of assisting in the research which we require in order to solve the problems of our ethnic minorities is the view which takes their disabilities, which are real, and their difficulties, as somehow part of a worldwide revolt of the coloured peoples against the former white imperialists. I must say that I find this a very curious notion. Again, the fact that if you have only one unit the spirit which infuses it is likely to be of great importance, suggests yet another example of where there are great difficulties in deciding what is a proper area for expenditure in this field.
Another might be the field of education. I note that of the two professors of education who are entrusted with important research functions by the Social Science Research Council at the moment, one is Professor Blackstone of the University of London, best known for her unremitting public assaults on selective and independent education. I think that many of us who are concerned in the educational world, who have experience in it, would not regard research by Professor Blackstone as carrying with it the stamp of scholarly impartiality.
But, of course, it is not only a question of areas of great social or political sensitivity. There is also the question of whether fairly neutral areas are themselves suitable for public support. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what, I am afraid, is a very old but, on this occasion, very relevant story in relation to the data archive at the University of Essex into which a good deal of money is put and which largely—but not, of course, exclusively—produces interesting statistics about elections, voting behaviour and other
292
such matters. The story, with which your Lordships will be familiar, is that of the lady at the zoo, looking at a hippopotamus and asking the keeper what was the sex of the hippopotamus. As your Lordships will remember, the keeper's reply was, "That is of interest only to another hippopotamus".
In my view, the reasons why people support political parties and the statistical apparatus by which one judges the movement of the electorate are of great interest to other political parties. No doubt noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite would very much like to know for their own political purposes what makes people vote for the Alliance, but I do not think that discovering that is a matter on which public money should be spent. It is surely appropriate for political parties, if they require such information, to pay for their own research.
Therefore, we have from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, though going some way towards looking at the problems and some way towards solving them, still, on the whole, one would think a fairly clean bill of health, if I can put it that way, for the council. There is, of course, a good deal to be said for his final view that it ought now to be allowed to put its house in order and that for three years at least no further inquiry should be entered upon. One would again like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government whether the Government take the view that this is a stage in the development of the council at which it now might be allowed to rest.
Finally, however, I should like to ask a question which is not mentioned in the report itself but which is the subject of what purports to be a news item in the current issue of The Times Higher Education Supplement, where we are told that Her Majesty's Government are considering a humanities research council, or a council dealing with both the humanities and the social sciences. I hope that this is an occasion when the press has got it wrong.I can think of no more inappropriate way of organising research into the humanities than through a Government-appointed council. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will explain to the House with far greater authority than I can, the British Academy uses public money more economically, I would think, than any public body, in order to further such research, and certainly does not need to be engulfed in a more bureaucratic institution.
Nor, for the reasons that I have given, do I think that the problems of the humanities and the problems of the social sciences are sufficiently akin for a single body to deal with both of them. Indeed, if I had to amalgamate that body with another, I should have thought that one of the natural science research councils would be more appropriate, because what is most lacking in handling the problems of funding research in the social sciences is the kind of judgment which natural scientists can apply. But there, too, there are problems which will readily occur to your Lordships. All I would hope is that this particular rumour can be quashed before this evening is out.
8 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for asking this Question and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important report while in parliamentary terms it is almost hot from the

293
press. Also we are grateful to have had an opportunity of listening to an extension of the strongly critical views which the noble Lord contributed to Lord Rothschild's inquiry. Lord Rothschild, as ever, has done an excellent job. The singular clarity of the report and its deft organisation make it a pleasure to read.
Apart from the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government, I am the only non-academic taking part in this debate, but a quarter of a century ago I took five years out of journalism to work as assistant director of the Nuffield Foundation. Indeed, it was through Nuffield that I first met the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Swann, and although I did not meet the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I was very much concerned with Dr. Furneaux who contributed some rather valuable evidence for the famous Robbins Report.
My work was mostly in the field of the social sciences. I had to organise the applications for projects, submit them to the scrutiny of other authorities in the field, and then present them to the trustees. As most of the trustees were eminent in other sciences the projects received from them a keen and sceptical examination which was never unjust, though sometimes I found it salutary and somewhat embarrassing. Reading this report brought back to me my Nuffield days. Moreover, it supported the views I developed from my experience there that though the social sciences have far greater limitation than the layman supposes, they are none the less essential as an aid to an understanding of our manifold social problems.
Lord Rothschild, himself a biologist, provides in this report the best and the clearest defence of the social sciences that I have ever read; an acknowlegment at once of their shortcomings and a justification of their support. He reminds us that the social sciences suffered from being more comprehensible to the laymen than are the natural sciences, so an investigation which produces results that accord with common sense can seem unnecessary and one which does not accord with common sense can seem incredible; so there is a kind of no-win situation.
Then it is necessary to distinguish between research and development in the natural sciences and in the social sciences. The object of the first is to find out whether or how something can be done. The purpose of applied social research is to provide material on which to conduct a more informed debate and make better decisions. Lord Rothschild prints at length a most useful and balanced criticism of sociology by the professor in that subject at Washington, Seattle. There is, says Professor Farris, an accumulation of tested knowledge in such parts of the discipline as methodology, ecology, demography, the study of social differentiation and mobility, and research into attitudes, public opinion, and mass communication. But other fields have done less well, and critics have put it down to the appetite of sociologists for jargon, for pseudo-quantification, too much imitation of the methods of natural sciences and too much dependence on data from interviews and questionnaires. I should like to echo that strongly from my own experience. There is a dispute about its main purpose, as indeed there may be in the entire field of science: whether it is to provide an intellectual understanding of the cosmos, or to be
294
an instrument for the immediate improvement of the human lot.
To this Lord Rothschild adds part of the suspicion which sociology has evoked arises from early claims that it would occupy for the human sciences the position of physics in the other natural sciences. The parallel to social science is not physics, he said, but that part of biology which studies the habits of a particular organism. And in the social sciences, alongside strict scientific methods of research there may be need of historical, linguistic, even literary evidence. Indeed, it may be necessary to make use of fundamental sciences outside the social sciences, such as physiology.
I suppose that Lord Rothschild felt all this philosophical examination of the nature of the social sciences to be essential because the very basis of the work of the Social Science Research Council is scoffed at by too many natural scientists and too many scholars in the humanities. It is essential to remove the misconceptions of what the social sciences are, the way they operate and the purposes they can serve before a case for their generous endowment by the Exchequer can be made. It is also necessary to identify the consumers of their work.
Lord Rothschild was asked by Sir Keith Joseph which areas of the council's work should be done at the expense of the "ultimate customer" rather than the Exchequer; which areas supported by the Exchequer could be done as well by other bodies; which areas supported by the Exchequer through other bodies could be better covered by the council. The answer to the first and most important of the Minister's questions is that whereas in the natural sciences the customer is the person who wants it done, the social science customer includes all those who have a part to play in the decision-making process. The decisions to which most of the research sponsored by the council contributes are essentially governmental. But in a democratic society these decisions are not the sole concerns of Ministers or officials. The beneficiaries of this applied research are Members of Parliament, journalists, academics and the public at large. There is no single customer who might take out a contract. So though much research may still be commissioned by such customers as Government departments and private organisations, the public interest requires, Lord Rothschild says, an independent source of funds for research which such customers cannot be expected to undertake.
There is also a need for independence from Government departments because so much social science research is the very stuff of political debate.
"It would be too much"—
says Lord Rothschild,
"to expect Ministers to glow with enthusiasm for research designed to show that their policies were misconceived. But it seems obvious that in many cases the public interest will be served by such research being undertaken."
Having had only three months to complete the report, Lord Rothschild has relied largely on the letters he solicited, about 300 of them, expressing the views of a large number of scholars and eminent administrators. On the whole, in spite of its imperfections, they give the council a fairly clean bill, and nobody seems anxious to take over any of its functions.

295
Lord Rothschild says:
"It is hard to accept the rationale for its dismemberment, casting the bits and pieces to a number of institutions, some of whom would be unlikely to want, and some of them unlikely to be able, to digest morsels of this kind."
But he recommends a number of improvements, while saying firmly that the Government should not liquidate the SSRC any more than they should dismember it. They should not reduce its budget further over the next few years, and they should stop making incessant inquiries into the work of the council. Anybody who has had to work for any rganisations which is subject to continual cuts of grant and continual inquiry knows how devastating that can be on the morale and efficiency of an organisation.
There is of course one recommmendation of rather sensational interest. The chairman of the council, he said, must cause to be investigated Lord Beloff's accusation that the Council's Industrial Relations Unit at Warwick or the Panel for the Monitoring of Labour Legislation are unfairly biased in favour of the unions. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, cannot have made this recommendation without a good deal of thought and, I should have thought, a rather heavy heart. I do not know of any precedent for an inquiry of this kind at a British university, although there may be some. Of course, Lord Rothschild could do no other, when a Member of this House, who occupies aposition of such high esteem in the academic world as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, does, makes such an allegation in an inquiry set up by the Minister. It cannot then just be noted and left for the council itself. After all, the council is itself under challenge in the matter.
In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, the inquiry was set up only yesterday and I suggest that on the whole one should consider the matter to be sub judice and not to go into it. Lord Beloff may be proved right or not wholly right. His evidence is by far the most critically phrased and radical of all that quoted in the report. He is doubtful, indeed, about the desirability of perpetuating the council in anything like its present form, although I thought the noble Lord's views today were a little more moderate than they were in his evidence. He speaks, indeed, of the low quality of the council itself and of many of its committees and panels. I thought that was a rather surprising remark to make about the council—for such a remark to be made by one professor about a body which contains about eight other professors. However, I think the council has been considerably changed since the original list on which he was commenting. Sir Keith has made some important changes in the council.
I could not help but wonder, as I listened to the noble Lord today, with his demand for impartial scholarship, whether that was not too thick a demand. I am sorry to see him shaking his head.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I did not assume that impartial scholarship was attainable. I said only that where it was likely to be partial, or thought to be partial, the public purse should be not involved.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I should have said that, if it is to be non-partial before the public purse is
296
involved, I do not know where one will find it. I would not expect to find it in the noble Lord himself. One must not expect to find it in individual scholars. If one is dealing with a unit and that unit has one particular political direction, that is a very different matter from suggesting that any particular individual scholar should be impartial in all the investigation he undertakes. I cannot help but feel that Lord Beloff's quite right scholarly fastidiousness about the subject is also fortified by his deep conservatism. It is my experience that people with very strong conservative views have a certain suspicion of the social sciences because they reveal the flaws in society, and the revelation of those flaws creates a demand for radical, and often costly, reform. However, we must await the outcome of the inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said—I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on this point—that the most serious weakness of the council is its failure to make known to the general public its own work and that of the social scientists it finances. He regards its efforts as primitive and unprofessional. Indeed, the results of this failure have been serious and have contributed to the establishment of this inquiry; the inquiry itself might not have arisen if the council had been less primitive and less unprofessional in its presentation of the work it is doing.
There can be no stronger supporter of attempts to suppress jargon in the social sciences than I. He even goes so far as to say that the council should not only put its own house in order, but persuade the people it supports to suppress unnecessary jargon. They would have a hard time doing that, and I speak with some feeling on the subject. I have lately returned from a UNESCO seminar where I had to fight my way through clouds of jargon. In my time I have had the maximum exposure to such language, but at that seminar there were times when I could not tell what they were talking about—and I wondered whether they could tell what they were talking about. A number of poeple who called themselves communicologists seemed to be incapable of communicating with anybody, except with one another. Indeed, I thought it was not so much thought they were uttering as a kind of incantation in which they all joined. We are very fortunate to have had a report of this quality, and I hope the Government will take notice of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because he has, with his initiative, done exactly what the Secretary of State wanted done, namely brought about discussion of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in Parliament. I also very much sympathise with what he said about the Secretary of State himself. Some very unpleasant things have been said about Sir Keith Joseph. It is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to ask that something of which he and his friends are suspicious, and think is not working properly, should be looked into. In fact, that is what a change of Government is about.
I would cite as an example what Mr. Tony Crosland did when he was Secretary of State. He initiated an inquiry—on which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey,

297
and I sat and suffered for many months—into the public schools. There was, however, this difference—and this is in Sir Keith Joseph's favour—that Mr. Crosland insisted on terms of reference which certainly constricted the committee in the views it was able to express, whereas Sir Keith has given a completely clear run to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. It is a very good report. It is brief, decisive and says what needs to be said. I am also glad that it is enlivened by humour. How correct Lord Rothschild was to refer to the importance of, "knowing when some eminent scholar is past it, something that happens at almost any age."
Although I am not a social scientist, as a member of the Heyworth Committee, which recommended that the SSRC should be set up, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, endorses that recommendation and dismisses the idea of putting this kind of work under the department itself as being, naturally, open to the imputation of political bias. I am bound to say also that I think he is right when he concludes that the British Academy is not the right body. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and that redoubtable secretary of the Academy, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, came before the Heyworth Committee and said that if the committee was willing to recommend, they would be willing, for the Academy, to deal with the whole business of the allocation of grants. I then asked Sir Mortimer what would happen when there was an application from a sociologist—because at that time there was no single Fellow of the British Academy who was a sociologist—and Sir Mortimer replied, "Perfectly all right. We'll bring in the barbarians". I have no doubt that Sir Mortimer would have been as good as his word, but the question was whether he would have selected the right barbarians to make the decision as to whether or not a particular piece of research was worthy. I see that in its evidence the Academy now thinks that it is better to leave things as they are.
Why has this inquiry come about? It has come about—
Lord Robbins: My Lords, I must put a slight gloss on the noble Lord's account of what went on before the Heyworth Committee. The suggestion which Sir Mortimer Wheeler and I put forward was simply that we should be responsible, as we were in 11 other sections, for the grants to economics and, if necessary, to sociology. We never suggested—and I completely sympathise with the present president of the Academy—that all the other, to my way of thinking, extraneous functions should be conjoined.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for his excellent, admirable and entirely correct gloss.
I was asking the question, why it was that the inquiry was set up? What was the origin of the suspicions about the SSRC? I can think of one reason for it. There is a general misconception in public as to what the social sciences can achieve. Nobody ever asks natural scientists to justify the practical results of their researches. One of the greatest of new fields in biology, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, knows only too well, is that of molecular biology. It is hoped that research into DNA and the reason why cells suddenly get a message to multiply inordinately will lead to the
298
discovery of the causes of certain kinds of cancer. But the kind of research which is now done in laboratories on molecular biology is still a long way from affecting medical treatment of cancer.
The social sciences are often expected by those not really acquainted with them to produce immediate results; what Sir Karl Popper used to call social engineering.
It is of course more important that we should have modest expectations of what social science can teach us rather than those vast explanations of the way in which society works, which Karl Marx or Auguste Comte, the founders of sociology in the 19th century, produced in their time. But very often, even though teams are assembled and funded and conduct research, the results in terms of practical application are very limited. I think, for example, of the admirable decision by Rab Butler to set up an institute of criminology at Cambridge. Undoubtedly some practical results have come from that institute, but many of its conclusions amount simply to the point that crime is just one of the ways in which society expresses itself. People who thought that the institute would produce results which would lead to a decrease in crime were over optimistic.
In fact social scientists themselves are sometimes guilty of over-selling their subject. The trouble is that a very few social scientists, some economists and some social administrators are, I fear, crude and arrogant. I would describe their way of approaching the subject by saying that they produce the syndrome of the four-letter man. What happens is this. They choose an area of social discontent and then they declare that it has been by them "thoroughly researched". They then declare that the remedies that they recommend for the social discontent must immediately be put into effect. When the Minister, official, chief executive, or the managing director in a particular concern does not do so at once, they pillory him. If he says that he requires time for the piece of research that they have done to be discussed, they accuse him of procrastination. If he says that the whole project that they have outlined is too expensive, they declare that the expenditure of a few millions to remedy the discontent is a fraction of the cost of Trident. If he still refuses to take the action that they have recommended, they then call him a four-letter man. That is the syndrome.
That is one of the reasons why social science research has got a bad name among politicians. That is why for some it is synonymous with arrogance, power without responsibility, and bias. I now ask the question, is it biassed? I shall not go into the affairs of the industrial relations unit at Warwick University, because that matter is now to be the subject of an inquiry under Sir Kenneth Berrill. I would add only that industrial relations is a subject which got under way in the 1930s—Montague Burton, for example, founded a chair in the subject—because it was realised that this was a new, third estate of the realm emerging, about which most people in universities and many people in public life at that time knew very little. That is why industrial relations research has concentrated on the unions themselves, rather than on the management side.
But when it comes to discussing bias I would say

299
that there can be no value-free social science. If you take history, you will find today that one of the most eminent of social historians is the Marxist historian Professor Hobsbawm. Or you can turn to the past and think of that great Whig historian George Trevelyan. Or you can turn to his great opponent, the Conservative historian, Sir Lewis Namier. Those are men who have written history from a point of view, who have tried to show that they took other people's arguments into account, yet nevertheless maintained their own particular point of view and showed why they made what they considered to be more reasonable inferences than those whom they criticised. But those men won renown not because of political stance, but because of their grasp of the underlying legal, political, social principles and the way that societies change over the years.
Again if one takes economics, it was in the 1950s common knowledge that there was a great difference between the political outlook of the Faculty of Economics under its great leader the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, at the London School of Economics, and the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge which adopted different principles. Ricardo was quite right when he said that the subject ought to be called political economy, and not just economics.
If I turn to sociology, I would say that it is simply untrue that all sociologists must be by definition left-wing. Dr. Wilson, a sociologist of religion at All Souls, is certainly a fit companion and adviser of Warden Sparrow. Of course it is natural for someone who examines some part of society, or some social relationship, to stress the diseconomies and discontents which disturb that relationship, or that part of society. But he is just as likely to conclude that to alter any part of that relationship would be to destroy something exceedingly valuable.
For instance, in America universities are now compelled, under new laws which go by the name of "affirmative action", to institute elaborate procedures to ensure that all candidates for a post get fair and equal treatment and consideration. A sociologist might observe that the price of this extra concern for fairness, which entails that every expression of opinion about a candidate, every letter, every telephone call, has to be logged and open to public inspection, has been the collapse of the system of confidential reports on which previously peer review was based. In other words, the sociologist may well conclude that reform and change has had the very opposite effect from that which the reformers desired to achieve.
I next ask whether the SSRC has neglected hard-nosed social sciences, such as economics, which require a formidable apparatus of analysis, in favour of vapid studies, such as sociology and anthropology. On anthropology, I think Sir Edmund Leach says in Chapter 10 of the report all that needs to be said. On sociology, I would say this. There are undoubtedly a number of weak departments of sociology and of social studies in British universities today, and the report says so. Why is this? It is not the fault of the subject: it is the fault of dons of Oxford and Cambridge, and to some extent of London, in the 40 years between 1920 and 1960. The bitter enmity by historians and economists to a subject which already had
300
major figures at the turn of the century in Weber and Durkheim, had a disastrous effect.
There was a good deal of crude academic politics in this. No post in sociology was established at Cambridge until the 1960s, and even later at Oxford. At the London School of Economics and Bedford departments of sociology flourished, but they were small in terms of the numbers of students who came through the departments. That was the reason why, when in the 'sixties there was an overpowering desire at last to expand this subject and to recognise that it was a subject of importance, as had been recognised for years in France and Germany—and in all major American universities—no cadres of young academics existed to fill the new posts.
But let no one doubt that there are excellent men and women in this subject. If I may cite one who is the son of a Member of your Lordships' House, there is Mr. Runciman, who combines being the managing director of his family shipping business and writing illuminating books on sociology as a Title B Fellow of Trinity which, as a Cambridge man whose affection for Oxford is unassailable, I would describe as being at least equal in distinction to that of a Fellow of All Souls.
But when the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, criticised Lord Young for his policy as the first chairman of the Social Science Research Council, and for spreading its funds too widely, I would say that Lord Young was responding to a situation which I would not wish to call academic conservatism, because conservatism is an honourable word, but a situation produced by academic pigheadedness over many years, and a refusal to acknowledge what had in fact been recognised as a subject of distinction in other countries. It was for that reason that the SSRC in its early years tried to encourage all sorts of initiatives which sober people would have said were ridiculous.
I think the SSRC was right to support a struggling subject—a subject which has made important contributions to knowledge. It is sociology and the study of society which has transformed historical research. Historical research is now unrecognisable from what it was before the days of Marc Bloch and the great French school which centred round the periodical Annales in the Sixième Section of the Collège de France.
You can of course kill the SSRC, not by suppressing it but by refusing to finance it adequately. That is what the chairman of the UGC said in paragraph 9.165 of the report. If you cut its funds still further, then the support that it can give to the multitudinous branches of the social sciences will mean that the overheads of the council become totally disproportionate to what it can achieve in distributing those funds.
What I think would be deplorable is if there were further criticism, not merely of the council or its present chairman, Dr. Posner. Before the Rothschild inquiry Dr. Posner was overhauling the structure of the SSRC, and it is clear from the report that he had got management consultants in to look at its efficiency. Of course, Lord Rothschild suggests that there are other matters to which he could direct his attention, but the fact is that Dr. Posner had the courage to run counter to the wishes of a lot of his constituents among

301
social scientists in order to see that the country got value for money.
The only reform that I wish had been recommended in the report is that the council's name should be changed from the Council for Social Science Research to the Council for Social Studies, because "science" is a misleading word in this context. It is true that sociologists, economists and social scientists of all kinds make use of techniques which are very often statistical in their origin, sometimes methodological, but do not themselves constitute a science. I think that if we were to think of this council as supporting social studies we would be!much happier in realising what results can be achieved. So the report seems to me to be a vindication of the value of the work of the SSRC, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will endorse that view when he answers the Question.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to join with others who have spoken in thanking Lord Beloff for opening this debate tonight, and I should especially like to thank him for the moderate tone he adopted. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said, the tone he adopted tonight was rather different from the tone he adopted in the evidence which is recorded in this report, and for that I and others here, I think, will be grateful. The noble Lord has never concealed his attitude to the Social Science Research Council; nor, indeed, to much that goes on under the name of social science or social studies, or whatever you might like to call it; but it seems to me— and I am bound to say this— somewhat odd that after this report has been produced he should wish still to pursue the matter, even in the moderate way that he did in opening this debate.
The Secretary of State was perfectly entitled to ask for advice about what action to take about this council or any other research council. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that he had a right to do this, and I agree with him; although to many people it looked, when this particular adviser, a most distinguished natural scientist, was chosen, as though the die was cast for the SSRC and that the kind of report would be produced that could legitimately lead the Secretary of State to dismember the council in a way that some people, at any rate, hoped would happen. As we now know, it has not happened and, contrary to the initial expectation, and coming from a person who cannot be accused of any bias in favour of the social sciences, certainly not previously expressed, it has come as a vindication of the SSRC and generally of the work that it has done, despite the many important criticisms that are made and the recommendations arising out of those criticisms.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that in his view the report went some way towards giving the council a clean bill of health; but, judging from the tone of his remarks, the clean bill of health is still not all that clean. One might have hoped (as I hoped) that after this report had been produced the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, like other critics of the SSRC in the last year or two, would accept this individual verdict and do it generously. I have spoken about a certain amount of bias on the one side. I accept that there is a bias in me on the other side of the question. No doubt I am biased in
302
favour of this particular research council because as the noble Lord said when he opened the debate, 1, myself, was the first chairman of the council when it was first set up.
I am afraid that I did not altogether follow the criticisms that were made of the direction which it is alleged I gave to the council in the early days; but if the charge was that the funds were too widely spread in the earlier years, then I should want to go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said earlier and say that that was what was right, certainly at that time; and that to have been much more selective and to have picked out what were and are still called centres of excellence for specially favoured criticism would at that time have been wrong. At a time when after the Robbins Report had been produced there was not only rapid expansion in the universities generally but rapid expansion in social science departments in almost all universities, it would have been almost impossible for anyone, even if he wished to do so, to pick the winners out of all the new stables set up in that period in the 1960s. But against any wide spread of funds, if there was any— and we did, with very small resources, attempt to spread the funds— there was also an attempt to set up the new units and programmes of research which would lead to a concentration of funds rather than a dispersal.
The attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has shown tonight, much more moderate than on some previous occasions, is certainly very welcome. The evidence he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, is printed among other evidence in this report, and it is, I think, very noticeable and remarkable that, of those whose evidence is printed, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is almost alone in his severe attack on this research council. I should like to remind the House of some of the things said by other people and bodies who were invited to give evidence and who did so and whose evidence is printed here. The Advisory Board for Research Councils, for instance, says that the SSRC provides an essential focus for these varied disciplines, particularly in the way it acts as a forum for peer judgment and review. The Confederation of British Industry says that the work sponsored by the SSRC is mainly concerned with fundamental issues which can contribute to teaching and applied research.
"For this reason in our view it is not susceptible to the customer-contractor principle because of the difficulty of identifying who is the ultimate customer".
The CBI also says that the SSRC industrial relations research unit at Warwick is important to it and the fact that its work of necessity takes it into politically sensitive areas underlines the need for some independent source of funds.
Mr. Justice Gibson of the Law Commission refers to the need the Law Commission has for research to support the work that it does, and pays a compliment to the data that it has obtained from the Oxford Centre for Socio-legal Studies which is supported by the SSRC. He says that the withdrawal of financial support for this socio-legal research could have serious consequences for future law reform. The Royal Society speaks in a similar vein and asks that it should be accepted that a body making grants for research in the social science should be politically independent.

303
This is specially important for the SSRC since most of the topics within it are to some degree political.
Lastly of the bodies whose evidence I will bring to your attention there is the Trades Union Congress which says that direct intrusive or excessive governmental or commercial control over research and publication of social sciences would be generally unacceptable. It follows from the above that there is a strong case for the maintenance of institutions such as the Social Science Research Council, which functions in the important middle ground between academic interests and those of social and public policies and provides a system of allocation of funds which directly involves the academic interests and public policy makers in industry and elsewhere. These are just some of many bodies and individuals who take a very different line from the noble Lord who initiated the debate tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has, as we now know, accepted the great weight of the evidence that has come in in support of this research council and hence the need for social science research and for an independent body to support it, to deal or to help deal with some of the important, baffling and mysterious problems which are itemised in the report.
Unlike the noble Lord who introduced the debate, I am delighted by this report. Perhaps this could be expected. The final conclusions seem to me exactly right. There is no lack of criticism on detail, and I am sure that the SSRC will take up those criticisms and act on them wherever justified, as they seem to be to me in many cases. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, ends up by saying that there is one course of action which could not be easily corrected— which is the dismemberment or liquidation of the SSRC. That would be not only an act of vandalism, but as Professor Supple says, would have damaging consequences for the whole country and be one from which it would take a long time to recover. As he takes that general view— and this is his main advice to the Secretary of State— he says the SSRC should not he dismembered. Its budget should not be reduced in real terms below its 1982 level for a minimum period of three years and there should be no further inquiries into the SSRC for a minimum period of three years. I can only hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to the report that he commissioned and particularly on the issues that I have just mentioned.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, I think we are all indebted, whatever our respective points of view, to the noble Lord, Lord 13eloff, for having initiated this debate while the reading of this distinguished report is still fresh in our minds. Most of all, our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who in my opinion has grasped, in a field with which he was not in the past, I fancy, so familiar, the peculiar difficulties of reseach in social sciences, the importance of its freedom from political influences and the desirability of sufficient subsidy being forthcoming from the Government quarters, and has insisted that the real value of the Government subsidy, whatever form it may take, should not diminish in the next three years. All these things, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has mentioned, the purity of his style, his humour
304
and his forceful exposition, make his document enthralling to read. But I confess to some doubts about his administrative recommendations and the present functions of the SSRC.
Let no one in our restricted numbers think that I am about to propose the liquidation of the SSRC, but, to my way of thinking, I can conceive various improvements which would contribute to its efficiency.
At the present time the functions of the SSRC can be divided into two parts: first the award of graduate grants and fees for those who wish to pursue a second degree or a third degree in the studies concerned; and secondly, the general subsidisation of worthwhile research in the social sciences. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, argues that this combination of the two functions is appropriate. I have some doubts about this. Perhaps at this stage I may reveal my interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, I once was president of the British Academy at the time when it, too, had just received a regular Government subsidy. I was concerned in the reorganisation of the affairs of the Academy so as to spend this subsidy most expeditiously. At the London School of Economics I was for a quarter of a centry chairman of the Graduate School Committee. Thirdly, I have been chairman—I am no longer chairman now—of the international committee assembled by Lord Annan's predecessor at University College which is publishing over the next 30 or 40 years the collective works of Jeremy Bentham. In that respect, I am deeply grateful for the assistance which has been given by the SSRC.
Contrasting my experiences on the organisation of the British Academy in regard to research with the organisation which has been developed at the SSRC, I detect manifold differences. It may be a contribution to this debate if I elaborate them a little.
The British Academy has nothing to do with postgraduate awards for those who wish to enter graduate schools to pursue studies in humanistic subjects. In my experience as chairman of the graduate school at LSE, the DES performed very satisfactorily. In the days when economists and others received grants from the DES in all sorts of ways the arrangement worked perfectly satisfactorily. I am not absolutely sure that the quota allocations of the SSRC— at the beginning at any rate— have worked particularly well. To return to the British Academy, its functions therefore were much easier than that of the SSRC as it has developed. It had nothing to do— and I repeat, "it had nothing to do"— with post-graduate awards. Its sole function in this respect was to allocate research money other than those awards, in the various subjects for which it was responsible. At the time when the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, deliberated on these matters, I think there were 12 or 13 sections of the British Academy. Thus nowadays I think it might be said that one of the main functions of the British Academy is the scrutiny of the proposals in research which are put up to it by individuals, by groups of people in universities, and by groups of people collected from different universities. It helps to ensure that the radically inferior grants that the humanities get, in comparison with social studies, go as far as they can.
The allocation of this money is now one of the main businesses of the entire Academy. The requests

305
come in by a certain date every year: they are sorted out by the secretariat to eliminate obvious madness; they then go up to a grants committee, which is immediately under the Council of the Academy, and the grants committee will allocate to the various sections for exact scrutiny. I only know what is done in a limited number of sections with which I have had particularly intimate relations, but I have no doubt at all that the sections take seriously their job of awarding As, Bs, Cs and Omegas to the various applications. They then come up again to the grants committee, which passes them on to the council. Thus the entire body of the Academy ultimately is concerned with the allocation of this money.
This means that the business of allocation is much cheaper than it is elsewhere. The Fellows give their services for nothing; and the administrative staff covering all the applications and the other business of the Academy is very small. Since the burden of recommendation rests with the various sections, the members of which have been elected at various times to fellowship of the Academy, there is not likely to be any pronounced bias one way or the other in the recommendations of the sections. That seems to me to be a very superior arrangement—one which I would earnestly commend to the Social Science Research Council to embody in whatever form its establishment may take in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, argues positively in favour of the combination of the two functions— the general subsidising of superior research and the awards of post-graduate grants and fellowships. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, whom one must take very seriously in this matter, says that the quota system involves a certain amount of informal guidance from the centre and influence on the development of graduate schools. With great respect to the noble Lord, I would have thought that, in so far as graduate schools depend upon physical equipment in the case of social sciences, such as libraries, statistical machines, typists and people who can use computers, this certainly fell within the ambit of the University Grants Committee.
I myself would hope that in the future evolution of the Social Science Research Council it could turn itself into something more on the model of the British Academy and in no position on any of the main committees. I would hope that the Social Science Research Council could hand over to the Department of Education and Science the burdensome and costly business of assessing applications for people who wish to proceed in the respective subjects concerned to the graduate school. I should have thought that the mere mechanical award, given certain rules and testimonials of academic awards, was supremely a subject which was suitable for a rather down-to-earth Government department.
For the rest, I am bound to say that I have some lingering suspicion of the quota system. I think that, in the sphere of second and third degrees, competition is desirable. The young, would-be graduate should shop around according to the reputation, as he conceives it, of the teaching and advising If he is accepted by the school of his choice, then the DES, acting more or less mechanically, can do the rest. This arrangement seems to me to be conducive to the liberty of both students and universities.
306
Incidentally, the financing of second and third degrees is something which, hopefully, would give the people who were so privileged an advantage in income over the rest. Since Professor Prest suggested that amortisation of loans should not commence until a certain minimum income has been reached, I should have thought that this, at least, is a branch of university activity which could be financed by loans à la Prest.
I have spoken for too long, but I hope I have demonstrated to the noble Lord, Lord Young, whose work I have admired, that, on the whole, I am not hostile to the Social Science Research Council which he founded. But I certainly hope that it will divest itself of its more mechanical duties and so transform itself that it is advised by people of known repute, whose names may be published, in which case I think that some of the misapprehensions about the recent financing of social science, through the committee's instrumentality, would be reduced to a minimum.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for asking this Question tonight. There seems to be some doubt as to the pronunciation of the noble Lord's title. I can say that it is "Buluff" I have it from the horse's mouth. He is an old and valued colleague in the University of Oxford. I must say that the topic of social science has never been conducive to brevity, and that all too common apothegm applies to your Lordships' debate tonight. Nobody, not even an experienced man like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has so far spoken for less than 20 minutes. However, I shall do my best. I have not hitherto spoken for longer than 12 minutes in this House, but it is a subject which tends to rhetoric.
I read the report by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, with great interest and with some knowledge of what he was writing about. It seems to me that there were two fundamental questions, one of which the noble Lord addressed. Other noble Lords, notably, Lord Annan, have spoken about the nature of the social sciences and the great difficulty about the use of the word "science" in this context, since we live in an age when the reputation of the natural sciences is so very great that the word "science used loosely in other contexts, must be very carefully handled. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, addressed himself to this on page 17 of his report, at paragraph 4.8, in which he asks whether sociology would take the place of physics in the natural sciences. He says:
"The great difference between social science and physical science, which is relevant here, is that social science is defined by its distinct subject matter, namely human beings and their behaviour in a social setting. Physical science does not define itself by reference to a single subject matter; but instead aims more than social science at general and comprehensive laws".
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, I do not think that goes far enough. I do not think that people who have not worked in the social sciences fully appreciate that social sciences are far more like the humanities than they are like the natural sciences. They are far more like history. They are in great part a continuous dialogue on the great questions which have perplexed humanity since the beginning of recorded time. One of the most important characteristics of those continuous and perplexing questions is that they

307
have no answers or, rather, no answers which are laid down for all time. They lead only to more questions.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to ask him in what way he thinks the natural sciences are different from the social sciences in the light of what he has just said about this continuing debate and the lack of firm answers? Surely the same thing applies to the natural sciences as to the so-called social sciences.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, if the noble Lord would do me the honour of listening to the remainder of my speech, I shall be addressing myself to that very question. I had been speaking, I think, for only two and a half minutes and I was hoping to confine my remarks to 12, but unfortunately I shall have to take a little longer on this question. The particular characteristic of the social sciences to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, quite rightly has just drawn attention is that, just like the natural sciences—only, with respect, more so— they have this particular Popperian quality of more often proving a negative than proving a positive. It is not that they are concerned exclusively with humanity compared with the natural sciences It is because they are the kind of question, the kind of theory which is much more open fundamentally to question than has in recent times been the case with the natural sciences.
This is a relevant point to make, because it brings us to the topic which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised of social engineering. It is a fact that the nature of social engineering, or of social technology as it is sometimes called, is a very bad metaphor indeed. While, as a matter of historical fact, the discoveries in the natural sciences have led to artefacts in the mechanical world which have functioned and which can be seen to function— the connection between the discovery in Cambridge of the nature of the atom in the 1930s and the atom bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 is clear and obvious— there is great difficulty in tracing a similar path, a similar connection, between the work of scholars in the so-called social sciences and work in social engineering. It is necessarily, I think, much more tendentious, is necessarily much more political and is shot through with what Lord Rothschild refers to as "value judgments"— not a very happy introduction from the language of logical positives into the debate. Nevertheless, it is true that they are often concerned with questions of value.
One of the real doubts about the effectiveness of the social sciences must be a doubt as to whether or not their discoveries can truly be applied by policy makers in the way in which policy makers had hoped in the past they could be. I submit that this is a very serious and important question. Kant, the great philisopher, once said that out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. There is a fundamental argument against social engineering and social technology of all kinds: that it tends in one particular collectivist direction. That is the particular reason why the social sciences, and social engineering which has been built upon the social sciences, have been charged by many people with a particular political bias.That is an inevitable charge.
308
To a very great degree, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, in a very informed and most helpful contribution from the Opposition Front Bench said quite clearly, people who take up the study of social problems are likely to come up with answers which require social action to solve those problems. That is a radical stance, and necessarily it is a left-wing stance. There is no point in denying it. If social scientists get up and deny that charge, it seems to me that they are not being true either to themselves or to their tradition.
I was very glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, talking about the work of the British Academy and the humanities. I am very pleased indeed that there is to be no humanities research council One can just imagine the kind of dim men and the statutory woman who would be put on such an extraordinary body No great contribution would it make either to the work which is done in the universities or, I may say, outside the universities. I claim that the reason for this is that the nature of the humanities and the nature of much of the work of the social sciences is inherently controversial Different people are bound to take different views. Quite often, there is not one answer. I believe that some of the attack levelled at my noble friend Lord Beloff was because he made this very point; that there is no one truth in the social sciences. It is a very real question as to whether public money should go to A or to B on grounds that they are excellent in themselves, rather than because they are likely to lead to what is an acceptable or workable conclusion.
I too have very grave doubts about much of the work that has been supported by the Social Science Research Council over the years— not because I believe such work should not be supported but because I wonder whether it ought to be supported on quite such a large scale and why it has so consistently shown one particular kind of bias rather than another. It would be very refreshing if one of the people in industrial relations— and I do not refer now to the Montague Burton professors such as Harold Kirkaldy, who used to be the professor at Cambridge, but specifically about the descendants of that very great and distinguished student of industrial relations, Allan Flanders— just one day breathed the faintest hint of criticism of one trade union or another in some respects; perhaps just a footnote to one of their few thousand heavily subsidised pages. That would do more to restore their scholarly reputation than anything that Lord Rothschild might say, or that might be said by the person who has been put in charge of the investigation on behalf of Lord Rothschild.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that the recommendations in the Rothschild Report about graduate studentships and the support of graduate work are wholly wrong. It seems to me that these should be awarded on merit and that students should be perfectly free to search out whomever they wish to study under That is a perfectly elementary, mechanical function which used to be done by county councils. In recent years it has been done by the Department of Education and Science I see no reason why this could not be perfectly well done by a higher executive officer just reading off numbers from

309
examination results. I have very grave reservations too about the recommendations in the Rothschild report on the adoption of the American-style PhD programmes This is done in the name of efficiency, because the rates at which people do not complete graduate work in the social sciences has been subject to criticism. But a distinguished man though Lord Rothschild is, who is he to tell different universities how to organise their own graduate programmes? If that is not a matter for university autonomy, what is? When one turns to the subsidisation of research, it seems to me that if we were to be hostile— and I am very far from wishing to be hostile to the work of people who sit on these committees— there has been an element of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". This has been very marked in some of the work of the Social Science Research Council and in some of the things it has supported. I personally believe, now that the pioneering work has been done over the spread of social science faculties in the universities throughout the kingdom, that the time has come when this research money should be directed to the UGC for the UGC to allocate to different universities. I myself think that the SSRC programmes have not been sufficiently distinguished, nor on the whole made a sufficiently great contribution to scholarship to justify what is in fact a substantial bureaucratic empire, something which has become so substantial indeed that less than 20 years after it was set up they had to call in management consultants to see whether or not it could be improved. That is a grave indictment of what is, after all, an extremely small body.
If there were to be residual functions which needed to be financed from the centre I would be very tempted to hand it over to the most distinguished of the research councils, the Medical Research Council, because, after all, medicine bears some resemblance to the social sciences in that it is concerned to some degree with the fundamental sciences and to some degree with practical application. But, above all, the Medical Research Council's standing in the world of research is beyond question and beyond parallel. I would have thought that at this stage, after this enormous expansion of the social sciences in the past 20 years, the subject could do with a little bit of the rigour which has been applied over the years by the Medical Research Council to the activities of investigators in those particular fields.
One of the sociological laws I have learnt is that in the bureaucratic world nothing that exists will ever cease to exist So I fear that, whatever Lord Rothschild has said about the Social Science Research Council, its perpetuity could never conceivably be doubted by any realist for one moment.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am glad to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for this opportunity to develop questions about the future of the Social Science Research Council. I may say it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey; it is a new experience for me and I rather enjoyed it. I certainly welcome his forthright criticisms of the SSRC and his candid comments about the limitations of economics, or, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has correctly said, and I prefer, political economy, which
310
we both have spent some large part of our lives studying.
I want to suggest that we should take more seriously the need to justify the spending of every penny of taxpayers' money, other people's money, on purposes which we may personally greatly favour but which are not always of proven public benefit and which in any event might be financed through voluntary sources. The Rothschild Report tells us that this year £ 460 million will be spent by five research councils And I would say that if all this expenditure is as dubious as I regard the £ 20 million spent by the SSRC, there is splendid room here for large economies.
We have heard that the author of the Rothschild Report relies on what he calls the "generally favourable evidence" of some 300 academics Yet the samples he quotes, with very few exceptions, are less evidence than straightforward statements of opinion, and there are no asterisks against the names to indicate which witnesses have been paid for their good opinions. Among the economists, sociologists and historians whose names I immediately recognise the vast majority are at least as biased in favour of Government expenditure as have been the leftist succession of chairmen of the SSRC, from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in 1965 to the present incumbent.
May I, therefore, set an example by declaring my own interests, as general director of the Institute of Economic Affairs From its formation in 1957 the trustees decided, as a matter of deliberate policy, neither to seek nor to accept so-called public money which is, after all, private money taken from people's pockets by Government decision It seems to me that we can learn from the universities which have recently woken up to discover that there can be no true independence so long as you are dependent upon political patronage. Although I shall have few friends for saying so, I think that we should not expect to take public money and run away with it.
Whatever may be said of the natural sciences, there are special reasons why taxpayers' money should not be conscripted into financing research in the controversial arena of social studies, to adopt the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Thus in political economy even such solid sounding concepts as capital equipment, or housing, or money itself, do do not depend on their objective properties but on subjective valuations, beliefs and behaviours. Indeed, I would argue that one of the chief advantages of the open market mechanism is precisely that it enables conflicts of values to he resolved by the widest conceivable consensus of people as consumers, workers and investors. But, so long as many other so-called social scientists take a different view, it follows in my opinion that research and dissemination of ideas in social studies is best conducted by competing organisations supported from widely dispersed private sources of finance.
By all means let the Government encourage charity by tax concessions, although I would personally favour fewer concessions and much lower rates of tax. But why, for example, should the National Institute of Economic and Social Research draw over 60 per cent. of its income from the SSRC and the Treasury when many economists would join me in holding its resulting influence to blame for a great deal of our inflationary troubles?

311
Having at one time put all their money on the NIESR as the chief source of macro-economic forecasting, it is true that the Government and the SSRC now support a half-a-dozen such oracles. I believe that it is an improvement. I think that if you are going to gamble on the economic Grand National, it is better to hedge your bets. But I think that it would be better still to turn academics away from what I regard as the contaminated public feeding trough. They believe that their macro-forecasts are of great value. Very well, let them tap the many sources of pure spring water to fertilise their researches Where they claim their work will yield fruit, let them appeal for support to the voracious fruit-eaters in business, the trade unions and Government departments. If they have more far-fetched projects, there is always the Rowntree Trust.
On the other hand, where research promises little prospect of fruit or of early fruit, it should take its chance in appealing to the large universe of charities, trusts and private benefactors. An incidental advantage of this market approach would be that more economists might come to see the merits of lower taxation so that money could fructify in the pockets of potential donors.
Glancing through the endless list of researches financed by the SSRC with other people's money, anyone outside Militant Tendency would find that they are often pretentious or partisan, and some are both Thus £ 36,059 went on a study of:
"Social and attitudinal characteristics of supporters of right-wing movements in Britain",
which the author amplifies as:
"the attitudes of those holding right-wing and racialist viewpoints."
I could not help wondering as I read it what would be the prospects for a rival research project into the attitudinal similarities between those holding Left-wing and fascist viewpoints. There are many other projects that are on the more harmless, trivial level of studies of rabbits and their habits. Many of them cost a few hundred pounds and could be well afforded from the pockets of any keen researcher.
One of the troubles is that the very existence of the SSRC has encouraged the art of grantsmanship which diverts attention into fashionable, often highly mathematical, research known to be favoured by the grant-giving establishment. Does anyone really suppose that Adam Smith would have been favoured by a contemporary SSRC?— or Ricardo or Keynes, let alone Hayek or Friedman in their earlier days? Yet all those have made seminal contributions to economic understanding, the like of which the SSRC has nothing to show despite having spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' pounds Before concluding, I must ask the Minister to tell us how the Government propose to deal with the scandal revealed in postgraduate education on which the SSRC spends nearly half of its budget. Of some 2,370 social science students registering for research degrees in 1973, almost 60 per cent had not completed their Ph.Ds after six years. I suggest that if grants were replaced by student loans, we would have less of this time-wasting nonsense. I welcomed the advocacy of my noble friend Lord
312
Robbins for the reform away from grants towards student loans
But I want to conclude with the most characteristically protective recommendation of Lord Rothschild's non-radical, conventional though well-written report. He says that there should be no further inquiries into the SSRC for at least three years. I would agree, subject to adding that during that period the council should be wound up. Let no new grants be made and let existing commitments be phased out. To hopeful new applicants I suggest that the SSRC send a plaque for their study walls inscribed with the advice of Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory before the war:
"We haven't got any money so we must use our brains."
9.38 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that this is a most unusual report It is unusual because it is written by an unusual man, and by him alone It could certainly never have been written by a committee for, after all— and as a biologist I have always relished this— is not a camel a horse designed by a committee? It is only necessary to read the first page of the report and then Chapter 4, where the nature of the social sciences is explained with great elegance, to realise why Governments find them baffling and confusing and, above all, irritating.
Governments want quick, plausible solutions to the problems of the day. The social sciences, on the other hand, offer conclusions that are uncertain and qualified and which can seldom do more, as the report says, than clarify the options. To make things yet more annoying to society at large and to Governments, they do so in a way that often seems to defy common sense. But the Government and society would do well to ponder the remark of no less a man than Einstein, quoted on the very first page of the report, namely, that,
"Common sense is a deposit of prejudice laid down in the mind before the age of eighteen".
As the report makes clear, the natural sciences are not subject to this common sense backlash because for the most part they are just too abstruse. But, of course, it was not always so. One wonders what sort of furore there would have been if Galileo, Darwin or many other great men of the past had been supported on Government money. The Secretary of Education, had there been one, would have been under the most intense pressure to do something drastic about them. The social sciences have a long way to go before they escape such pressures, and, in their very nature, perhaps they never can But none of this means that we do not need the insights that the social sciences can give, uncertain as they may be.
I myself became acutely aware of this in my time at the BBC because common sense tells many people that violence and sex on the screen rapidly corrupts society. Such research as there is, on the other hand, suggests that things are not at all so simple. More recently I have taken over the chairmanship of a Government committee concerned with the education of ethnic minorities, and, depending on who you are and your political leanings, common sense tells you that the poor performance of some minorities, especially blacks, in contrast to the relatively high achievement

313
of most Asian minorities—not all—is due to racial prejudice and discrimination in the schools, or on the part of employers, or that it is a matter of IQ, or of family influences, or social deprivation, or cultural and social background, or a whole host of other things. In reality the problems almost certainly arise from a complex tangle of many of these factors, but which ones? One is most unlikely to get to the bottom of the matter by listening only to opinions.
When I came afresh to the task, I hoped and expected that at least some answers would be available from social science research, and indeed they are. But the e is not very much relevant research, and of what the, e is all too little of is of the highest calibre. Some moreover is written in language so jargon laden or, worse still, because jargon is sometimes necessary, in such impenetrable prose as to defy comprehension. It is my unhappy lot to have to read a good deal of this stuff nowadays, and I want to offer you just one quote from a paper by a sociologist of some apparent responsibility in a distinguished British university. I could have given you many more, but one will do at this hour of the night:
"Not only is this illustrative of the kind of position and explanation associated with a social pathological perspective, but it possesses the effect of opening and legitimating a sub-textual discourse that reinforces a pathological conception and approach towards the study of under achievement".
What a pity that George Orwell is no longer with us. In his splendid essay on Politics and the English Language, he described just such a piece of prose:
"A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up the details".
Recommendation 24 of the report should indeed be taken to heart, and not only by the SSRC but by social scientists in general. The poor quality of all too much social science research is a theme that recurs in the report, and especially in the quotations from written evidence in Chapter 9. I am not in fact unduly concerned about this. Any natural scientist, and I am one, talking off the record will admit that the proportion of really good research in his subject is very small, and I believe this is inevitable. One can never predict who will make the major advances, and every subject needs underpinning by lesser men. Second rank research is seldom worthless, and when it is, its perpetrators are gradually squeezed out of the system, not least by the SSRC, which has clearly done a great deal to raise standards.
The report examines the Government's suggestion that more social science should be funded on a customer-contractor basis, and concludes, quite rightly in my view, that there is little scope for such a change. The customer, in so far as he can be identified, is too often society in general, which means, inevitably, the Government. Who else, I wonder, will really support much research in, for instance, the problems that beset me in my committee on the education of ethnic minorities?
The report also concludes, rightly again in my view, that the Government, directly, are seldom a desirable funding agent for research that by its very nature almost always carries political overtones. The committee also endorses the system of peer review by committees of experts, even though it thinks there are too many of them. That must be right. It is in general
314
the only way that quality can be assessed and standards raised.
But it leaves me with an uneasy feeling: committees, by their very nature, express the majority view What happens if the majority are so sure that their view is right that they reject the dissident approach from which, historically, all the great advances have stemmed? I recall the birth of molecular biology in Cambridge when I was a young science don there just after the war, the most significant biological advance, beyond any doubt, of this century. Perutz, Crich and Watson, the Noble prizewinning trio years later, were not swept into the university system as they should have been; they were supported only because one man, Sir Harold Himsworth, then secretary of the Medical Research Council, almost entirely on his own initiative, had a hunch that they were going to revolutionise biology. They survived only because another man, Sir Lawrence Bragg, of the Cavendish Physics Lab., not a biology lab, thought the same and gave them help and house room I believe that any system of supporting research must have a few pots of gold which some wise individuals can use to support young men and women whom they think have real quality, even though the prevailing orthodoxy is uninterested.
I note that the Heyworth Report of 1956, recommending the establishment of a Social Science Research Council, concluded that the danger of "spurious orthodoxies" was passed, something that the Clapham Committee of 1946 had earlier used as an argument against such a body. I would be less sure, even today. Orthodoxies are part and parcel of intellectual life and research and I do not doubt that there are still plenty about— not spurious perhaps, but certainly dubious.
I wish to mention the alleged political bias in some social sciences, most notably, perhaps, sociology. It is a matter of no concern, surely, that sociologists should, privately, be left of centre, or indeed right of centre. Before the war, many distinguished natural scientists were decidedly left of centre, but it in no way distorted their research. On the other hand, there must be concern if private political views do distort research, and the report, as others have commented, has actually requested the SSRC to investigate one alleged instance. I know nothing of that particular case, but whether or not it turns out that there is anything in the allegation, I suspect there is cause for concern elsewhere.
Certainly in my broadcasting days I was dismayed when one university group produced some research on the media (unusual, as a matter of fact), potentially valuable, but ruined it— there is no other word for it— and ruined its reception by broadcasters by the blatant political slant they gave it. Even so, I am not over-worried. These follies tend to be self-correcting, and even the natural sciences are not immune. Much Soviet research, most notably in genetics, was ludicrously distorted for many years by Marxist orthodoxy, but in due course a combination of international ridicule and systematic ignoring by peers produced a change of heart. And so I suggest it will do in the social sciences. Meanwhile I cannot think that a Government who have sent the Argentines packing in the Falklands, and who pride themselves on taking a firm line in a host of other areas, need really be frigh-

315
tened of such a little mouse as periodic political bias in academic sociological research.
I want to say only one more thing. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has done us a noteworthy service. He has analysed the weaknesses of
316
the research council, which are not so very numerous, and demonstrated its merits, which are considerable. He leaves me convinced that for the Government to dismantle the Social Science Research Council, or even to diminish it, would be doctrinaire, foolish, and perverse.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not including my name on the list of speakers, but, quite genuinely, I did not know that I was going to speak until I had actually heard the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, said that he was the only non-academic to take part in the debate this evening— but here is another one, who, I think, is perhaps a little lower than Lord Ardwick. He, I understand, went to Manchester Grammar School, and in the working-class of Liverpool he would be considered to be an academic. I left an elementary school at 14 and became a plumber. Ultimately I became the leader of Liverpool City Council, and then I was very honoured to become the chairman and the leader of Merseyside County Council. I also became the chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council, and besides all those posts somebody, somewhere, thought that I should also become a member of the Social Science Research Council. I do not know why. It is an even greater mystery to me why a Minister of the party opposite reappointed me a member of that august body. But I thought that it would be a good lesson in education for myself, and I mixed with many academics.
The Standing Orders of the House recommend us all not to defend or speak on behalf of a body of which we are a member, and so I have no intention at all of speaking on behalf of the SSRC. I speak, I hope, as a representative of the ultimate customer who is referred to in many parts of the report—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that it is the custom for your Lordships to speak on your own behalf.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Well, my Lords, may I say that I speak as an ultimate customer of the Social Science Research Council, not a representative of it? By "ultimate customer "I mean somebody who has been elected to be responsible for looking at, and trying to solve, some of the problems which concern the Social Science Research Council: crime, poverty, race riots, drug addiction, urban deprivation, unemployment, and the state of the economy. If anyone wants a lesson in trying to gauge the necessary amount of resources to meet those problems, I recommend him to go and live in and try to manage a local authority such as Merseyside. He will then realise that perhaps the problems there are a little greater than those problems that face the academic world. When I came into the Chamber tonight I expected to listen to what was best in the academic world of our nation; instead I have listened academic tearing another another academic to pieces, and to academics ridiculing one another. It was almost personal abuse. I have never believed that that was the best of our academic world. But it has happened; it has happened tonight.
The report contains the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I make no pretence to being a clever person. I think that I have a little common sense, and that I should be able to judge between the abilities of one person and those of another person, or between
318
one group of persons and another group of persons, all practising in the same field. I wish to say, quite seriously, that the intellectual level that we have achieved here tonight in the Chamber was certainly no better than the intellectual level that I have heard achieved among academics in the Social Science Research Council. So if I were among the academics in this Chamber I should not go too strongly on the idea of condemning other academics and ridiculing them. I may be wrong, of course, and I stand here willing to be contradicted, but I have no doubt that the quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, came from a person who was trained in our universities.
Some of the problems that face local politicians in places like Merseyside come from the demolition of blocks of flats which have proved unsatisfactory to some people but are eminently satisfactory in other parts of the country, and even in other parts of the city; and I have no doubt at all that those blocks of flats were designed by people trained in universities. The universities of this land have known about the social problems that I have mentioned, and have lived alongside them— and in Liverpool we have one of the best universities in the land, I am told— but they have made no contribution that I know of (they have certainly made none in my hearing) to the solution of those problems.
Labourers in the streets of Liverpool knew in the 'thirties that Liverpool was on the down-path towards ultimate depression. They knew that because of what was happening in the economy. I do not ever remember any university coming out with any learned thesis about solutions matching up to that kind of problem; and if anybody has let the nation down in the solution of our social problems, then it is in regard to the economic life of this nation.
Let me say this about the Social Science Research Council. I believe—I do not profess to know, but I believe— that the fundamental political principle behind the setting up of the Social Science Research Council was a general feeling that following the war, and beginning with the decline in our economic affairs, because of the social problems that were becoming manifest we needed an organisation to look into the subject and to propose solutions along the way.
I think, quite frankly, that we have not done all that we could do in providing those solutions. Evidently the problems are still there. There must be a reason, and I believe the reason lies inside Parliament. We talk about dismembering the Social Science Research Council, or we talk about putting their responses out to the market forces, or carrying out research where somebody finds a need for research and is willing to pay for it. What happens to the young kid in Liverpool who is now glue sniffing? Who pays for the research into that social problem? That can be applied to every social problem that exists.
There is no question of applying market forces to the examination of social problems for which the economy is responsible, and for which ultimately the Government are responsible. What happened was that the Government of this day— and I believe it was a Labour Government, but it does not make any difference— set up an organisation which was to study seriously the

319
major social problems arising out of our economic affairs in order to get a solution, and then left it alone.
The real problem with research is that the research is not carried out to its ultimate, logical conclusion. We need a Social Science Research Council, or, preferably, we need an organisation for social studies, because I mistrust the word "science". Of the notable contributions that science has made to our modern life, most of them have been foolish and most of them have been irrelevant to a decent life. If you really examine the contributions that scientists have made to our affairs you will see that they have not really contributed to a better life on many occasions.
The difficulty in dealing with social problems is that once a study has been made nobody is strong enough to say, "Relate that to modern problems and let us solve them on the basis of the study". The Social Science Research Council has published the new paper, The Inner City in Context No university ever did that. No university ever carried out a really serious study of the relationship between local and central Government, which will shortly pose tremendous problems for this nation following the collapse of devolution. No university did that. The Social Science Research Council has done it, and what does it want now? If needs, and the nation needs, the Government to sit up and take notice; to get somebody to co-operate with the SSRC and the academics who carried it out and then to translate it into political action If we do not, we will have wasted our resources on the SSRC. You cannot stop now, because one thing that the council has done is to highlight some of the social problems which can be solved. If you dismember or abolish it now, then gone is the chance of solving them.
Nobody in the debate tonight has mentioned the ultimate consumer. I should not have spoken if the academics had bothered themselves about the fundamental requirements of the social services and the problems to be resolved by research. I should not have bothered at all. But I had to do so because I know what it is like and I know the kind of social problems that there are in Merseyside and the North East and in North East Wales and I know that they will come out of this depression, when the rest of the country is going to boom again, considerably worse off than when they went in.
That is a major social problem and on the solution of that depends all the other aspects of social life in this country. If we do not get our economic life right, then we shall not get our social life right; and we shall not get the inner cities problem solved. And what are the politicians doing about it? They are having a debate on whether or not we should keep an organisation like the SSRC whose responsibility is to research these problems and to come up with the answers. It will be a crime against the Humanities, against the academic life of this nation, if the academic world in this nation cannot come up with a solution perhaps to reorganise the SSRC into another body, perhaps to rename it, perhaps to give it more resources But to dismember it will be disloyal to the nation's academic
320
profession and, worse still, disloyal to the nation itself.
1 had the biggest shock of my life when I read the evidence by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I do not think that those remarks, talking about the level of membership of the SSRC, were justified, were Christian or in line with what I consider to be the professed ethics of the academic world. It got almost to personal abuse. I have a duty to say this: from my knowledge as an ordinary human being, the people on the Social Science Research Council work hard to achieve their objective— as hard as anybody else. I think that an apology is due to them for the words said about them. I think that it was wrong and does not contribute a jot to the betterment of the academic world of this nation.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think we have had a long and vigorous debate this evening. This Unstarred Question, for which we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Beloff, has lasted longer than any of the 2½hour debates and proves again the value of the method of this particular form of debate in this House. My noble friend Lord Beloff has asked what action the Government propose to take in respect of Lord Rothschild's review of the Social Science Research Council and has pressed for a response, as have several other noble Lords, who have spoken this evening. I fear my response tonight will be possibly one of the briefest of the contributions, but perhaps no worse for that. Your Lordships, however, must be aware that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced in a Written Answer in the other place on the 18th May that Lord Rothschild's report would be published the next day, he also stated that he wanted the report's findings and recommendations to be openly and widely discussed. That is precisely what your Lordships have done this evening.
My right honourable friend has specifically invited various bodies to send their views on the report to his department's science branch. Among those bodies are the University Grants Committee— which was referred to this evening— the National Advisory Body for Local Authority— Higher Education, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. Beyond that, it is open to any interested person or body to submit their views to the department if they wish to do so and such views will all be considered carefully, provided that they are received by 19th July, as this is the date which my right honourable friend has specified as being the closing date for the consultation period.
I hardly need impress upon your Lordships that my right honourable friend attaches considerable importance to this consultation period, as he undertook at the outset of this exercise that the Government's consideration of Lord Rothschild's findings and recommendations would take place in the light of such public comment as may emerge following the publication of the report. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will accept that it is still too early for Her Majesty's Government to respond to his Question

321
in any detail. Indeed, I have noted down a large number of his questions this evening, but I regret that it will not be possible for me to give a reply and I hope that in the context of what I have said earlier he will appreciate the reasons.
The comments received, together with the recommendations, will have an important part in formulating the Government's response at an early date. I recall earlier this afternoon that my noble friend Lord Cockfield, said that the phrase "in the near future", defied definition. I fear I can add nothing to that particular comment except to say this: it is quite apparent from the drafting of the report and the excellent form it takes that there will be early and valuable discussion upon it and that my right honourable friend will consider it in the light of the undertaking that he gives on the very first page. I remind your Lordships of what he says in his closing remarks:
"My colleagues and I, in considering those recommendations addressed to the Government, will study carefully the comments received".
I was particularly glad to listen to every one of the major contributions this evening. The note which struck home so warmly was recommendation 24, commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and almost all your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Swann: the reference to that evergreen volume by Sir Ernest Gowers, Plain Words. I have in the course of the morning been looking at that volume. It is one of the books that I keep ever constantly beside me on my desk. In this particular context, having listened to that remarkable comment by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and his quotation, we shall find this volume particularly valuable, as indeed the report itself is.

Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and re-committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report was made and ordered to be printed.
  MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS: PAY IN ARMED FORCES
  MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS: PAY IN ARMED FORCES
  WESTERN ISLES: SPECIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
  WESTERN ISLES: SPECIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES
  BATTERED WOMEN: LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OBLIGATIONS
  BATTERED WOMEN: LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OBLIGATIONS